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

Re: RFS: odvr



El mié, 29-06-2011 a las 09:48 +0200, Kilian Krause escribió:
> Hi Guillermo,
> 
> On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 12:32 -0430, Guillermo Lengemann wrote:
> > Dear mentors,
> > 
> > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "odvr".
> > 
> > * Package name    : odvr
> >   Version         : 0.1.5-1
> >   Upstream Author : Tristan Willy <tristan.willy@gmail.com>
> > * URL             : http://code.google.com/p/odvr/
> > * License         : GNU GPL v3
> >   Section         : sound
> > 
> > It builds these binary packages: 
> > odvr       - Support sound recorder Olympus VN models
> > 
> > The package appears to be lintian clean.
> > 
> > The upload would fix these bugs: 513271
> > 
> > My motivation for maintaining this package is: use the application and i
> > want learn package for Debian GNU/Linux.
> > 
> > The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
> > - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/o/odvr
> > - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
> > main contrib non-free
> > - dget
> > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/o/odvr/odvr_0.1.5-1.dsc
> > 
> > I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.
> 
> Thank you for your work. Here are my comments:
> 
> 1. Your debian/changelog has a badly formatted line above your
> signature. Shows up highligted in vim syntax for example.

ready.

> 2. debian/compat is still at 7. Please use 8

ready.

> 3. Standards-Version is still at 3.9.1. Should be easy enough to bump
> that to 3.9.2 which is current.

ready.

> 4. debian/odvr128x128.png copyright? Yours? Gimped that picture
> yourself? If so, that'd be ok. If not, please mention. Eventually you
> can talk upstream into including something directly though.

I am creator of debian/odvr128x128.png. Add comment en the changelog
file.

> 5. debian/patches/debian-changes-0.1.5-1 still contains template lines.
> Please remove them and add when/where it was forwarded upstream.

ready believe.

> -       install -D -o root -g root -m 755 odvr $(DESTDIR)/usr/bin
> +       install -o root -g root -m 755 odvr $(DESTDIR)/usr/bin
> 
> I don't understand though. Why would you want to drop the -D here?

Eliminate -D.

> Changing your patch name into something more meaningful like
> "destdir.patch" will get rid of this warning:
> W: odvr source: format-3.0-but-debian-changes-patch

Ready.

> ...which seems you've already done in
> debian/patches/install-makefile.patch. So why is
> debian/patches/debian-changes-0.1.5-1 needed anyway? And why do you
> alter the "release" target when you don't use it?

> And why do you patch out the "Ubuntu" when you could just extend that
> line to include Debian. Obviously upstream would like the file
> in /etc/udev/rules.d whereas you now ship it in /lib/udev/rules.d. This
> is somewhat asking for problems communicating back and forth without any
> obvious benefit I could see.

ready.

> And just for the record:
> debian/patches/fix-ico-desktop-create.patch and
> debian/patches/fix-image-ico-create.patch are empty and not used anyway

ready, delete files.

> 6. debian/rules is still old-style. Please try to update to debhelper
> version 7 style - it'll clean your rules significantly.

ready.

> 7. You add DESTDIR support in your patch. Yet your debian/rules does
> use:
>         $(MAKE) prefix=`pwd`/debian/`dh_listpackages` install
> Why?
> 
> 8. Unused dh_ lines in debian/rules can be deleted even in old-style
> 
> 9. unused lines in debian/watch should be deleted as well. Apart from
> that your debian/watch doesn't work. Running uscan gives:
> -- In debian/watch, processing watchfile line:
>    http://code.google.com/p/odvr/ odvr-(.*)\.tar\.gz
> uscan warning: In debian/watch,
>   no matching hrefs for watch line
>   http://code.google.com/p/odvr/ odvr-(.*)\.tar\.gz
> -- Scan finished

ready.

> 10. If you can convince upstream to look into the useless linking of
> libs that'd be great. Though I know it's painful. ;-)
> 
> See the lines like:
> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on libpangoft2-1.0.so.0 could be
> avoided if "debian/odvr/usr/bin/odvr-gui" were not uselessly linked
> against it (they use none of its symbols).
> 
> in the build output.
> 
> 11. Your source ships a binary blob:
> P: odvr source: source-contains-prebuilt-binary odvr.x86

> 12. Your copyright is not DEP-5 format. Please insert the missing lines.

ready.

> 13. Your manpages seem to be not entirely clean:
> I: odvr: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign usr/share/man/man1/odvr-gui.1.gz:27
> I: odvr: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign usr/share/man/man1/odvr-gui.1.gz:28
> I: odvr: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign usr/share/man/man1/odvr.1.gz:81
> I: odvr: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign usr/share/man/man1/odvr.1.gz:82
> Overall not bad for a first try. I guess the above should be easy to
> fix. And then the upload should be piece of cake once this is addressed.
> 

excuse for delay and thanks for you help.

Attachment: odvr_0.1.5-1_amd64.changes
Description: PGP signature

Attachment: odvr_0.1.5-1.dsc
Description: PGP signature

Attachment: odvr_0.1.5-1_amd64.deb
Description: application/deb

Attachment: odvr_0.1.5-1.debian.tar.gz
Description: application/compressed-tar


Reply to: