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

Re: RFS: uthash (updated package)


thanks alot for the review. I acknowledge the issues reported by you. The 
explanation for 5) and 3) is that the package is available in a private 
repository for my co-workers and other external parties (because I was unable 
to get it updated in the official repo).
I can remove all changelog entries that are unrelated to the Debian repository 
or merge the relevant ones in the most recent entry.

I have considered to use quilt for the README file modification and that 
change shouldn't be a problem. In fact the changes are so minor, the package 
probably could be provided with the changes at all.

The bashism will be fixed when I switch to the patch system like you propose.

I will try to upload a new version as soon as possible.



On Friday 20 May 2011 10:01:52 Didier Raboud wrote:
> 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:
> > (…)
> Hi Bastian,
> Is this the package:
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/u/uthash/uthash_1.9.3-1.dsc ?
> 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.
> Cheers,
> OdyX

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: