Re: RFS: uhub (closes ITP bug)
Boris Pek <tehnick-8@mail.ru> writes:
> This package contains small count of source files. So it don't required a lot of time for review.
Didn't have time for a through review yet, but a couple of things I'd
like to comment on:
* debian/copyright appears to be a mix between free-form and DEP-5. I
would recommend using either, but not a mix between the two, as that
looks just awkward.
It would also be nice if you'd describe how exactly the .orig.tar.bz2
is generated: is it downloaded from the specified location as-is? Is
it repackaged in one way or the other? (I suppose so, the debian/ dir
is not present in the .orig.tar.gz)
* debian/uhub.docs
AUTHORS is already documented in the copyright file, BUGS is - in my
opinion - not useful in a Debian package, TODO is an empty file, and
README does not contain all that much information, either.
debian/doc/getstarted.txt also contains a lot of useless information,
stuff that's not relevant for users of the Debian binary package.
Not having a clue about what uhub is, though, there might be things in
it that users DO need, so this is the only file I'd leave in
debian/uhub.docs. And add the WiKi link from README to it.
* debian/uhub.postrm, debian/uhub.prerm
These files can be safely removed, as they only includes a #DEBHELPER#
tag.
* debian/uhub.postinst
The postinst unconditionally chmods /var/log/uhub to 750 on every
upgrade. I would suggestshipping the directory in the deb with that
permission already, and drop the postinst.
* debian/rules
Please do NOT set SILENT=YES! We do want to see the exact commandline,
together with command-line options and whatnot, so that any possible
build failiures or miscompilations can be tracked easier.
* Other notes
Since uhub seems to have the option of being compiled with SSL
support, it might be a good idea to enable that, perhaps?
--
|8]
Reply to: