[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFS: free42

On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 08:07:30PM -0500, Jean Schurger wrote:
> Le jeudi 09 décembre 2010 à 08:59 +0100, Etienne Millon a écrit :
> > On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 05:39:25PM -0500, Jean Schurger wrote:
> > > What's the 'good' way to ask to review an update of a package like this
> > > one ? I should continue to dput it as replacement, and ask in that
> > > thread ?
> > 
> > "dput -f mentors" it will overwrite the previous package. You can
> > state that you updated it in this thread and it will probably be fine.
> Hi, i've updated my free42 package.
> The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
> - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/free42
> - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
> main contrib non-free
> - dget
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/free42/free42_1.4.66-1.dsc
> Can you have a look ?
> Jean.


Package builds cleanly and is lintian clean. That's good news :)

  - dpkg_shlibdeps does not complain anymore. It means that your patch
    works. However, you have included two patches, and one
    (0_less_libs.diff) does not apply (probably because your output
    directory was named "2"). The second one is fine, though. You can
    delete the non-working one and remove it from

  - you use a lot of calls to "pwd" in debian/rules. This is not
    necessary, relative paths work too : `pwd`/x is equivalent to x.
    Moreover, debhelper can help a lot here (dh $@).

  - Your manpages should describe how the binary is run. Does it have
    command-line options ? etc. That will be the first thing your
    users will try if they don't get how the package work. Other
    documentation should go… in the documentation :-) .

  - Probably an upstream issue, but I find it confusing to ship two
    binaries that differ only in the way they interpret numbers. IMHO
    that should be a command-line switch or a menu option.


Etienne Millon

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: