Re: RFS: archivemount (new package, 2nd try)
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 05:40:06PM -0500, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> Le jeudi 8 juillet 2010 11:28:09, Nanakos Chrysostomos a écrit :
> > Dear mentors,
> Hi !
> > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "archivemount".
> > * Package name : archivemount
> > Version : 0.6.1-1
> > Upstream Author : [Andre Landwehr <firstname.lastname@example.org>]
> > * URL : [http://www.cybernoia.de/software/archivemount/]
> > * License : [LGPL]
> > Section : utils
> > It builds these binary packages:
> > archivemount - mounts an archive for access as a file system.
> > The package appears to be lintian clean.
> Not here, though it is minor:
> N: Processing source package archivemount (version 0.6.1-1) ...
> W: archivemount source: timewarp-standards-version (2010-06-24 < 2010-06-28)
> N: The source package refers to a Standards-Version that was released after
> N: the date of the most recent debian/changelog entry. Perhaps you forgot
> N: to update the timestamp in debian/changelog before building the package?
> N: Severity: normal, Certainty: certain
> N: ----
> N: Processing binary package archivemount (version 0.6.1-1) ...
> I: archivemount: description-synopsis-might-not-be-phrased-properly
> N: The synopsis (first line in the package "Description:" field, the short
> N: description) ends with a full stop "." character. This is not necessary,
> N: as the synopsis doesn't need to be a full sentence. It is recommended
> N: that a descriptive phrase is used instead.
> N: Note also that the synopsis is not part of the rest of the
> N: "Description:" field.
> N: Refer to Debian Developer's Reference section 6.2.2 (The package
> N: synopsis, or short description) for details.
> N: Severity: minor, Certainty: possible
> N: Removing /tmp/bOng9fFHNZ ...
Fixed. Lintian v2.4.2 used.
> > The upload would fix these bugs: 587029
> > My motivation for maintaining this package is:
> > It is a very useful tool for mounting archives with the
> > use of FUSE and accessing it as a file system.
> Indeed, this looks interesting. Building seems fine and the debian packaging
> looks ok.
> Two remarks though:
> * Minor: You don't need to list README.Debian in the docs, it is installed
> * Major: You got the license version wrong. The licence claimed by the author
> is LGPL version 2 and not 3 as mentioned in the debian/copyright file.
> Also, as a side note, since the build system is pretty standard, I would look
> at some tool like cdbs of dh to simplify debian/rules, but that's your call
> here :)
In the next version?? -:)
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com
> Archive: firstname.lastname@example.org">http://email@example.com