Re: RFS: uthash (updated package)
Bastian Blywis wrote:
> Dear mentors,
> unfortunately I got no replies to my RFS so I am trying again and give
> some additional information as motivation. Sponsoring the uthash package
> should be hassle-free because:
Is this the package:
If it is that package, I have some questions (un-ordered, written as things
went under my radar):
1) Why is the README file modified directly ? You should use a patch system
(quilt or dpatch) for this purpose
lintian: uthash source: direct-changes-in-diff-but-no-patch-system README
2) Is there a reason you are choosing source format 1.0 ? (I'm not insisting
on changing to 3.0, but no reason is mentionned in the debian/changelog.)
3) Have the intermediate upstream versions been uploaded somewhere ? Your
debian/changelog mentions several versions targetted to "unstable", but I
can't see those have been uploaded to the Debian archive. Usually (and I
will insist on that), each entry in debian/changelog corresponds to one
upload to the Debian archive.
4) the bashism you mention is _very_ easily fixed by s,/bin/sh,/bin/bash,
(possibly using the patch system you need to start using to fix 1) ) I don't
see a reason not to fix it: it is shipped in the examples of your package
and will fail when run by the user.
5) you did several un-documented changes to your package: you changed your
e-mail address, you bumped the Standards-Version, you updated the
description, you converted the package from 3.0 (quilt) to 1.0 (eh, see 2)
above), you dropped the manpage, … All those changes _have_ to be documented
in the debian/changelog file.
If you fix 1), 3), 4) and 5) and explain 2) to me, I would be happy to
sponsor this package for you.