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

Re: RFS: glipper

Jose Ernesto Davila Pantoja <josernestodavila@ubuntu.com> writes:

> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "glipper".
>  * Package name    : glipper
>   Version         : 2.1-1
>   Upstream Author : Laszlo Pandy <laszlok2@gmail.com>
>  * URL             : https://edge.launchpad.net/glipper
>  * License         : GNU GPL v2
>   Section         : utils

A few nitpickings from the sideline, if you don't mind (IANADD applies,
and so on and so forth):

* It would perhaps be a good idea to add a few more headers to
  debian/patches/01_license-headers.patch, like fill in the Author
  field, or add "Origin: Upstream CVS" or somesuch, to make it even
  clearer where it comes from.

* debian/copyright has this text:

"This package was debianized by Neil Williams <linux@codehelp.co.uk> on
Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:40:26 +0100.

The current Debian maintainer is Davide truffa <davide@catoblepa.org>"

This is obviously not the case, as the package is currently orphaned,
and the changelog closes the appropriate bug too, so the current
maintainer should be updated (by mentioning all former maintainers too,

* debian/glipper.NEWS

Why do you think that upstream NEWS (at least, that's what it seems to
me) belong to debian/glipper.NEWS? Such dependency changes, I believe,
are not interesting to end users, the package manager does the right
thing with those.

Unless this breaks existing functionality, or has other unexpected
side-effects the users should be aware of, I do not think it's worthwile
to bother people who upgrade the package with it.

And even if it has unexpected side-effects, then those should be
mentioned, not the dependency change. For a mere user, that means

* debian/rules

Very minor nitpicking, but... it's not a sample debian/rules anymore ;)

Aaand that's all the nitpickings I could find with a quick look. Quite
little, and most of it cosmetic. Good luck with finding a sponsor, and
hope that my comments will be useful!


Reply to: