Re: RFS: webilder
On 06/28/2010 02:06 AM, Nadav Samet wrote:
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "webilder".
Some comments from me, a DD is likely to find more that I have here.
Your ITP [1] isn't owned by you. Have you contacted
robin.wittler@credativ.de about this?
The first thing I noticed:
$ dpkg-source -x webilder_0.6.7-1.dsc
gpgv: Signature made Mon 28 Jun 2010 01:32:17 AM IST using RSA key ID A0A20367
gpgv: Can't check signature: public key not found
(...)
dpkg-source: info: unpacking webilder_0.6.7-1.debian.tar.gz
dpkg-source: info: applying debian-changes-0.6.7-1
If you want to patch something in upstream code, you should make a patch
yourself using quilt, preferably one that follows DEP-3 [2].
Looking into the patch itself, I see:
(automated message with changelog)
--- webilder-0.6.7.orig/src/Webilder.egg-info/SOURCES.txt
+++ webilder-0.6.7/src/Webilder.egg-info/SOURCES.txt
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ debian/compat
debian/control
debian/copyright
debian/pycompat
+debian/pyversions
debian/rules
debian/source/format
desktop/kwebilder.desktop
Why do upstream files contain references to a file in the debian/
directory? This made me check whether your .orig.tar.gz is pristine or
not. Turns out it isn't. The md5sum of the upstream tarball is
20a123f581e4f74378b18b076a281589 while the one you seem to have uploaded
is 0f97f2d500cfa10f5c5ff24d1f24d9ba.
Further, even your upstream tarball mentions files in the debian/ directory.
--- webilder-0.6.7.orig/desktop/webilder_desktop.desktop
+++ webilder-0.6.7/desktop/webilder_desktop.desktop
@@ -5,8 +5,6 @@ Comment=Download and display photos from
Comment[fr]=Télécharge et affiche des photos depuis Flickr et Webshots
Comment[it]=Scarica e imposta come sfondo le foto da Flickr e Webshots
-Encoding=UTF-8
-
Type=Application
Categories=Application;Graphics;
You should document why you've made such a change in the debian package
and what it's status is upstream. I see very little point to make a
patch in a debian package when you're already upstream yourself and the
change you are making is not debian-specific.
You may like to maintain your package with the Python Apps Packaging
Team (PAPT), you are more likely to find a sponsor there.
Although many DDs sponsor packages that use cdbs, there are some who
don't. You're likely to be better off using only dh.
Consider reading the upgrading-checklist and bumping your
Standards-Version to 3.9.0 [3].
Any reason for having a binary that begins with an uppercase letter?
Most binaries have lowercase names. I don't know the policy regarding
this, though.
You should also build-dep on python(>=2.4) not just python. [4]
You need not capitalize your short description. [5]
I have no idea whether Closes: 553184 is sufficient or whether you need
to write Closes: Bug#553184.
Finally, why do you build-depend on perl? I seem to be able to build in
pbuilder without b-d on perl. Don't see any perl in the code either.
[1]: http://bugs.debian.org/553184
[2]: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3
[3]: http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/upgrading-checklist.txt
[4]:
http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ap-build_dependencies.html
[5]:
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-pkg-synopsis
Reply to: