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

Re: RFS: git2cl

On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:

>> I would suggest to use Section: vcs instead of utils.
> Changed as adviced.

You appear to have missed the one in the source package section of
debian/control. Fix that one and delete the one from the binary
package section since that causes a lintian complaint.

>> The package description needs a review for grammar and spelling,
>> please contact the debian-l10n-english list.
> Well, this is a very polite way to point out how badly I screwed up with
> description. When I'm tired my English sometimes shuts down... :(
> I believe description is better now:

Much better.

A few more things to polish:

There is no reason to have +git200808271242 in the upstream version
number since you are packaging a tagged version. I would suggest using
`git describe | sed s/git2cl-//` to get a useful version number. This
works nicely even when you are packaging a non-tagged version.

Please comment out DH_VERBOSE in debian/rules.

Please add a debian/watch file explaining that upstream does not
release tarballs and that the gitweb server used does not have the
ability to export tarballs.

How about running git2cl in the get-orig-source target to generate an
upstream ChangeLog from the git history? :)



Reply to: