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

Re: RFS: qasmixer



Hi Sebastian,

On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 04:13:14PM +0200, Sebastian H. wrote:
> The new package source is uploaded.

looking closer at your package I find the following:

1. It's an intial upload to Debian AFAICT. Yet your debian/changelog is
   cluttered with a number of entries already. For an initial upload it's
   good practice to have only one entry in debian/changelog with the closing
   entry to the ITP bug as already stated. If for any reasonable explanation
   of your packaging more lines are neccessary, you can leave them in, but
   consider that this is a first time starter without history from a Debian
   POV.


2. Your debian/watch doesn't work. Yield remote version -0.12.0
   Even if corrected this makes it virtually impossible to compare with the
   original upstream tarball if that upstream version isn't yet available
   for public download.

   Btw. the correct regexp would be:
   http://sf.net/qasmixer/qasmixer-(.+)\.tar\.gz

   As you're upstream yourself you may want to publish the 0.12.1 version
   first though instead of basing your Debian package on a tarball that
   *may* not be yet official and thus final. Point is, we don't know. ;-)


3. You explicitly put versioned Depends for your binary. Some of them are
   even overriden by dh_makeshlibs and replaced with more recent versions.
   What's the reason you don't simply rely upon ${shlibs:Depends} and
   ${misc:Depends} to catch all required libs in their correct version?

   For example, you put libqt4-svg (>= 4.6.3) but the final deb has
   libqt4-svg (>= 4:4.5.3) which is newer due to the epoch (leading 4:) - is
   that what you intended? Same goes for libqt4-network and libqtgui4.


4. You may want to run your short and long description past a native English
   speaker's review. One easily grasps what you're trying to express, but
   IMHO it could be worded more smoothly. Just my peronal oppinion though
   and purely cosmetic change. ;-)
   I'm sure the debian-l10n-english@lists.debian.org folks will be happy to
   help you here.

Apart from that good work and ready for upload.

-- 
Best regards,
Kilian

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: