Hi Kilian, thank you for your review. On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 21:00 +0200, Kilian Krause wrote: > 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. Unfortunately, no. I need to understand: - if the logo can be changed - in which way > > Your short description might benefit from adding that this uses GNOME (at > least python-gnome2). Added (on git). > > 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. Fixed. (on git). > > 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. I checked in all web page for stretch out a bit the description, but I haven't found nothing interested users. > 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. I'll do it. > 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? This is my first approach packaging something that comes from Ubuntu to Debian. I treated this like any other package. Most likely I miss something. Usually, is there a common way to package software from Ubuntu upstream? > > 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 Or is it because the package is no longer maintained upstream?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. The second one. This package is a little bit 'outdated' > > Comparing with the Ubuntu package you've dropped "XS-Python-Version: all" - > why? This is a header that's preferred by the Python Policy. Added again. Thank you. Cheers, Fabrizio.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part