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

Re: RFS: triggerhappy (retry)

Hello and thanks for your reply,

Dies schrieb Stanislav Maslovski (stanislav.maslovski@gmail.com):

> But the orig.tar.gz does not have it either, so it is probably OK by
> now, however, you may consider adding it in future, because your work
> may be of interest to other distributions, and for them the Debian
> changelog is not a substitution for upstream's one.

Sure, adding a changelog is something I'm considering to do, but
I haven't gotten around to it.

> A somewhat related note: the patch debian-changes-0.3.4-1 in
> debian/patches contains changes that actually belong to upstream. As
> you are the upstream it should not be a problem to incorporate them in
> the proper place. Actually, uscan --verbose shows that you have not
> even oficially released the version 0.3.4 yet, while you have already
> packaged it for Debian! This is not good.

I forgot to push the tag for release 0.3.4 to github, that's why the
release was missing from the uscan output. It probably also caused the
changes to appear to appear in the debian patch file.

> Your debian/control insists on having debhelper (>= 7.0.50~) but as
> you do not use any of the override-* directives, I think that (>= 7)
> should suffice.

Thanks, I'll see if I can use these more relaxed requirements.

> Your debian/copyright is mostly OK, however, you may consider making
> it more DEP-5 aware (http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/). In any case,
> the copyright lines must match exactly what you have in the source
> files, please amend your Copyright: paragraph respectively. There is
> no need for any angular brackets around the copyright line; these
> brackets most likely came from the template.
> You may also consider removing redundant comments that came from
> templates and are seen in your init.d script and debian/rules file.

Thanks for your input, I'll try to hunt down these issues.

Reply to: