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

Re: RFS: usb-imagewriter

Hi Fabrizio,

On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 01:07:04PM +0200, Fabrizio Regalli wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 13:03 +0200, Fabrizio Regalli wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 12:58 +0200, Fabrizio Regalli wrote:
> > > Dear mentors,
> > > 
> > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "usb-imagewriter".
> > > 
> > > * Package name    : usb-imagewriter
> > >   Version         : 0.1.3-1
> > >   Upstream Author : Oliver Grawert <ogra@ubuntu.com>
> > > * URL             : https://launchpad.net/usb-imagewriter
> > > * License         : GPL-1
> > 
> > Is GPL-2, sorry.
> > Give me a minute to change it on package.
> Finished.
> Thank you and sorry for mistake.

Reviewing your package I find a bit of chat on the ITP bug yet no notion if
that "problem" of using Ubuntu logo has yet been solved and how. 

Your short description might benefit from adding that this uses GNOME (at
least python-gnome2).

Just to make sure it doesn't go unnoticed: your debian/copyright uses DEP-5
(rev. 135). Latest is 174. I hope this does reflect your intention.
And just to be complete about this, the URL doesn't check out as is.

The manpage is .. uhm, extremely brief. Sure that's all you want to tell
your users? And even looking at the webpage indicated there doesn't
substantially yield more information IMHO.

The implementation of build-stamp in debian/rules is screwed. The stamp is
generated *before* the build target is even started. For a personal choice
I'd vote for switching this to dh-style as it'll become much nicer that way.
As Ubuntu is a "special" upstream though, I'd also vote for using a shared
approach that both Debian and Ubuntu can live with and share the same code.
That being said have you already pushed your modifications to debian/rules
back upstream? What did upstream have to say about this?

Your patch wasn't sent upstream. Is there a reason for this? Does Ubuntu not
have the required command? AFAICS they also pull in the gksu via Depends for
their versions.

Or is it because the package is no longer maintained upstream? Last commit
is from 2009.

Comparing with the Ubuntu package you've dropped "XS-Python-Version: all" -
why? This is a header that's preferred by the Python Policy.

Best regards,

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: