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

Re: RFS: kboot-utils -- needed for d-i to complete on PS3

On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 00:25:40 +0200
Gergely Nagy <algernon@madhouse-project.org> wrote:

> Antonio Ospite <ospite@studenti.unina.it> writes:
> > I packaged kboot-utils (Helper tools to generate a kboot.conf file) for
> > debian, and I'd like to ask if someone can *review* the package and 
> > maybe eventually sponsor me for upload to the main archive.
> While I can't sponsor you, I did have a quick glance over the packaging,
> and would have a few comments:
> * lintian reports
> Lintian in Sid does report a few issues with the packaging, such as:
> P: kboot-utils source: unversioned-copyright-format-uri http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5
> P: kboot-utils: copyright-refers-to-symlink-license usr/share/common-licenses/GPL

I see, --pedantic warnings, thanks for pointing them out, I also got
P: kboot-utils: no-upstream-changelog
but I fixed that upstream.

I've also learned that lintian gives different reports depending on if
it is run on .deb .dsc or .changes with the most info shown when run
on .changes files. Good to know.

> I would also extend the copyright file so that the GPL-3+ license block
> contains more than just a pointer to the GPL-3. (See the "How to apply
> these terms to your new programs" section of the GPL).

OK, done.

> You install the README file, but is that really neccessary? It doesn't
> add anything over the package's long description, as far as I see.

OK, instead of stop distributing the README, I changed it upstream to
provide more info instead, so it is not the same as the debian package
long description.

> * debian/rules
> While the rules file is exactly the same as the sample, I'd still
> suggest removing the comments about the file being a sample. After all,
> it is used in a package that's targeted for Debian - it's real, live,
> production ready and so on and so forth - not a sample anymore, even if
> it's pretty much three lines total.

OK, done.

> Other than these little cosmetic issues, I didn't find anything else
> that'd be suspicious as far as packaging is concerned.

Thanks for the review Gergely, I am now proposing a new package based on
a new upstream version 0.1a:

  dget -u http://ao2.it/debian/kboot-utils_0.1a-1.dsc

Changes since debian/0.1-1 can be see at:


I cheated in debian/changelog: 0.1a-1 looks like the first version now,
and not the previous 0.1-1 I hope this is OK for the very first


Antonio Ospite

PGP public key ID: 0x4553B001

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
   See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

Attachment: pgpCqN6JGNTd7.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: