Re: RFS: hivex
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:50 PM, TJ <debian@tjworld.net> wrote:
> I've uploaded 1.2.2-1 to mentors. This version is based on the new
> upstream release that incorporates various changes to fix issues
> discovered during Debian packaging.
Looks like some symbols dissappeared from libhivex0, which now causes
the package to FTBFS because dpkg-gensymbols fails. I'm assuming they
were the private symbols that are now hidden. I'd suggest removing
them from the symbols file in that case.
Apart from that, the package looks fairly good. I'm unable to commit
to sponsoring it though, hopefully you'll find someone else with the
ongoing time to do so.
Remaining minor stuff:
lintian:
W: libwin-hivex-perl: maintainer-not-full-name TJ
I: libwin-hivex-perl: unused-override libhivex-perl binary:
maintainer-not-full-name
I: libwin-hivex-perl: spelling-error-in-manpage
usr/share/man/man3/Win::Hivex::Regedit.3pm.gz reencode re-encode
E: libwin-hivex-perl: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
./usr/lib/perl5/auto/Win/Hivex/Hivex.so
/tmp/buildd/hivex-1.2.2/perl/../lib/.libs
dpkg-gencontrol: warning: package hivex: unused substitution variable
${perl:Depends}
You may want to look at debhelper 7 instead of cdbs:
https://penta.debconf.org/dc9_schedule/events/418.en.html
You may want to look at DEP-5 for the copyright file:
http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/
debian/libhivex0.install can be reduced to one line: usr/lib/libhivex.so.*
Is it nessecary to ship the static library? and the .la file?
README probably isn't nessecary to ship in libhivex0, possibly the
same for libhivex-ocaml and perl packages.
It would be nice if the package descriptions were less template-like
and describe the individual packages instead of the whole hivex
project. Consider the audience for each package description when
writing them. For example libhivex0 will almost always be
auto-installed, so it can have a minimal description.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Reply to: