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

Re: RFS: peak-linux-driver



Hi Markus,

I'm not a DD but I took a look at your package. I'm not very familiar with 
source for kernel module but my assumptions were that the .in files are for the 
binary package which will be created from the source included in your package. 
and here are my remarks:

* Switch to source format 3.0 (quilt)
Source format 3.0 (git) is still experimental, I don't even think it is 
accepted by Debian yet. Please switch to format 3.0 (quilt) instead, which is 
the closest source format.

* Generate manpages from xml
It seems the manpages are generated from the xml via xsltproc but I didn't see 
any call to xsltproc in the rules file.

* Drop any reference to libpcan
debian/changelog mention that libpcan is not built anymore but 
libpcan*.install files are still included and there are still lines about it in 
debian/rules.

* Try using debhelper compatibility 8
debian/changelog mention using compat 7 but debian/compat still contain 6 
(debian/control is ok though). Compat 8 is the recommended compatibility now. 
This remark apply both to debian/control and debian/control.modules.in

* Handle RFP correctly (RFP -> ITP + Closes in changelog)
As you said this package would fix RFP #486470. You should first rename the RFP 
to ITP and makes yourself the owner of the bug as described at [WNPP howto]. 
You must then add a 'Closes: #486470' to your changelog

* Merge history entries of debian/changelog
This package has never been part of Debian and debian/changelog must describe 
the change made to the debian packaging. Hence your changelog should only 
contains one entry for the to-be-uploaded package version which merge all the 
current entries.

* Conform your package to policy 3.9.2
Bump Standards-Version to 3.9.2 and make sure your package is compliant with 
this version of the Debian policy. This remark apply to both debian/control 
and debian/control.modules.in

* Depends on make-kpkg (?)
I'm not sure about this one since I could not find the policy about binary 
package. But it seems to me that if you depends on bzip2 and make, you should 
maybe also Depends, or Recommends, make-kpkg.

* Try using dh-style makefile for debian/rules
debhelper 7 introduced dh-style Makefile. This makes debian/rules much shorter 
in most cases and thus easier to read. You will then need to configure the 
behaviour of all dh_* function you use in your debian/rules via some special 
files like the *.install files you use to configure dh_install behaviour.

* Use DEP5 for debian/copyright
Try using DEP5 as format of your debian/copyright. This ensure that your 
copyright is machine readable and hence makes information it contains easy to 
extract from it

* Apply the same rules to *.in files
Your control.modules.in currently use compat 7 and comply to policy 3.8.4

[WNPP howto] http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/#l3

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply to: