Bug#658235: RFS: libjreen, the xmpp library (3rd try, 2 months later)

[Benoît Knecht <benoit.knecht@fsfe.org>]

Hi Vsevolod,

Vsevolod Velichko wrote:
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "libjreen" (and do this for
> the 3rd time, because I've got no answer, neither positive nor
> negative since November 2011).
> 
>  * Package name    : libjreen
>   Version         : 1.0.1-1
>   Upstream Author : Ruslan Nigmatullin <euroelessar@yandex.ru>
>  * URL             : http://qutim.org/jreen
>  * License         : GPL2+
>   Section         : libs
> 
> It builds those binary packages:
> 
> libjreen-dev - powerful Jabber/XMPP library - development files
> libjreen1 - powerful Jabber/XMPP library implemented in Qt/C++

I took a look at your package, here are a few things you may want to
look into:

  - Some warnings from lintian:

      I: libjreen source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field "section" in package libjreen1
      P: libjreen source: unversioned-copyright-format-uri http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5
      I: libjreen1: no-symbols-control-file usr/lib/libjreen.so.1.0.1

  - In debian/control, your long description repeats the synopsis, and
    it doesn't consist of full sentences. See [1] for guidelines about
    writing good descriptions.

    [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-pkg-desc

    If you're not using a VCS, you should remove those commented-out
    lines.

  - In debian/rules, the dh_installchangelogs override isn't needed;
    debhelper will pick up the upstream changelog automatically.

    The dh_auto_install override could also be replaced by using
    debian/<package>.install files (see dh_install(1) for details).

  - In debian/copyright, you should use the predefined short names for
    licenses; what you call "MIT/X11 (BSD Like)" is the Expat license.

    And even though it's more cosmetic than anything, GPL-2.0+ could be
    replaced by GPL-2+.

    I'm also not sure your debian/README.source is particularly
    relevant. First of all, one _should_ care about that copyright in
    Debian since those files are shipped in the source package (so
    clauses about distribution of those files certainly apply). If you
    want to say that the binary package doesn't contain any code from
    these files, perhaps a Comment in the relevant File paragraph in
    debian/copyright would be better (as this file is actually installed
    along with the binary package).

I've built your package, but I haven't installed and tested it, so I
cannot comment on that.

Cheers,

-- 
Benoît Knecht