Re: RFS: pev

[Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 2011-01-11 23:05, Fernando Mercês wrote:
> Dear mentors,
> 
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "pev".
> 
> * Package name : pev
>   Version : 0.22-1
>   Upstream Author : Fernando Mercês <fernando@mentebinaria.com.br>
> * URL : http://coding40.mentebinaria.com.br
> * License : GPL
>   Section : utils
> 
> It builds these binary packages:
> pev - Utility to the get Product Version of PE32 executables
> 
> The package appears to be lintian clean.
> 
> The upload would fix these bugs: 608460
> 
> My motivation for maintaining this package is: This is a program that I
> wrote and I'm a big Debian fan and user for five years. I really want to
> contribute do project by starting a maintainer life.
> 
> The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
> - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pev
> - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main
> contrib non-free
> - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pev/pev_0.22-1.dsc
> 
> I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Fernando Mercês
> 

Hey

I had a look at your package:

d/copyright:
 - I guess "Source: ftp://ftp.example.com/pub/games"; should be updated.
 - I believe it has a few syntax errors (e.g. email written on their
   own line)

For repeated licenses I believe the right notation is

Files: a
Copyright: ...
License: GPL-3+

Files: b
Copyright: ...
License: GPL-3+

License: GPL-3+
  Yada yada yada

But I could be wrong here.  There is a new tool to check the DEP-5
format[1], though all though it still has some quirks (see the thread
for more info).  Just a heads up if you try it; it has been reported
that the --save option made undesired changes to copyright file[2].

d/rules: I think there is no need to override dh_auto_install. As I
recall when there is exactly one package dh_auto_install will do exactly
what you are doing in your override target.

d/control:
 - Any particular reason not to put the Homepage: field in the source
   entry?  All package entries will inherit it if they do not have
   they own and in this way the Homepage field will also appear in the
   dsc file.
 - Why the build-depends on debhelper 7.3.8? Based on your rules file
   you could do with 7.0.50~ (or even 7 if you remove the override
   target).
   It is perfectly fine if debhelper >= 7.3.8 fixed some issue
   that your package triggers with older debhelpers.


~Niels

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/01/msg00381.html

[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/01/msg00410.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=G9UY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----