On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 06:49:46 AM Jakub Wilk wrote:
> I don't intend to sponsor this package, but here's my review:
I have addressed these problems with
Bug#671272: RFS: pyswisseph/1.77.00.0+dfsg-2 [ITP]
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=671272
perhaps this new one should be merged with the old one 661664.
I don't know how to do that, or if I have the privs.
>
> * Paul Elliott <pelliott@blackpatchpanel.com>, 2012-02-28, 18:32:
> > dget -x
> > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pyswisseph/pyswisseph_1.
> > 77.00-0-3.dsc
>
> Please get rid of “<645551 is the bug number of your ITP>” and “source
> package automatically created by stdeb” cruft from the changelog.
done
>
> “Vcs-Browser” would be more consistent and more common capitalization
> than “Vcs-browser”.
done.
>
> I'd merge all 3 changelog entries into one, and remove of the stuff from
> it. There's no point mentioning that e.g. you added copyright file in an
> initial release. Of course you did. (But OTOH patches you added might be
> worth mentioning.)
done in part.
>
> Remove ${python:Breaks}, nothing generates this substitution variable
> anymore.
done.
>
> The package description is very bad. Please see Developer's Reference
> §6.2.3.
Changed, but I welcome further suggestions.
>
> The copyright file doesn't say where the upstream sources were obtained.
> This is serious violation of Policy §12.5.
Whole copyright file redone in dep5
>
> I don't understand your lintian override. Why you can't correct the
> spelling?
Changed the reasons to:
# Stanislas Marquis holds the copyright on the email
# containing the mispelling. Maintainer can not create
# derived work by editing the email
python-swisseph-docs binary: spelling-error-in-copyright indended intended
#mispelling occurs in upstream's license.
#Maintainer is not authorized to change license.
python-swisseph-docs binary: spelling-error-in-copyright GNU Public License
GNU General Public License
>
> You can remove “--buildsystem=python_distutils” from debian/rules; dh is
> able to detect the build system automatically.
done
>
> Please get rid of the “This file was automatically generated by stdeb”
> comment.
done
>
> Do not use patches to remove files. Such patches are huge and are very
> likely cause conflicts in the future. Just remove the files in
> debian/rules (but see below).
I don't delete them anymore; I just don't use them.
>
> The patches have “Forwarded: yes”, but were they actually forwarded? If
> yes, to who? They look Debian-specific to me.
replaced yes with the mail Message-Id: of the mail message sent to upstream
who has no bug tracker. message is informational, suggests upstream not do
anything.
>
> Assuming that you meant to use DEP-3 for your patch headers, and as far
> as I understand the specification, you need an empty line before the
> pseudo-header.
I believe I have fixed this.
>
> Please regenerate pydoc/* at build time.
done.
create new package:python-swisseph-docs for the results.
>
> The binary package name is wrong. It should be python-swisseph, as per
> Python Policy §2.2.
fixed.
>
> Upstream seems to support Python 3, too. Please consider building a
> separate python3-swisseph package.
done, but no way to test it.
>
> The is no source for PDFs in the doc/ directory. You have the following
> options:
> - Ask upstream to include the source in their tarballs.
> - Repackage their tarballs.
> If you choose the latter option, you could also get rid of unneeded
> files that delete-no-longer-need-swe-files patch currently removes.
Deleted it instead, creating a dsfg package. If anyone needs these files they
are in libswe-dev, a package, that does regenerate these files from source.
--
Paul Elliott 1(512)837-1096
pelliott@BlackPatchPanel.com PMB 181, 11900 Metric Blvd Suite J
http://www.free.blackpatchpanel.com/pme/ Austin TX 78758-3117
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.