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

Bug#677935: RFS: cwm/5.1-1 [ITP] -- Lightweight and efficient window manager for X11

Hi Benoît,

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 05:05:50PM +0200, Benoît Knecht wrote:
> I took a look at your package, here are a few comments:

Thanks for your detailed review! Your remarks are very helpful.

>   - lintian reports the following warnings:
>       P: cwm source: unversioned-copyright-format-uri http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5
>       I: cwm source: debian-watch-file-is-missing
>       P: cwm: no-upstream-changelog
>       P: cwm: no-homepage-field
>       I: cwm: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign usr/share/man/man5/cwmrc.5.gz:231
>       I: cwm: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign usr/share/man/man5/cwmrc.5.gz:245

I have fixed most of these. There is no upstream changelog as there is none
provided. I have set the homepage to the github page of the port which is
probably the most useful place for a user to find out about it. There isn't
an actual site for cwm itself.

>   - In debian/copyright, fgetln.c is licensed under the BSD-2-clause
>     license; and instead of repeating the ISC twice, you could factor it
>     out in its own standalone paragraph.

Thanks, I had missed that. I have updated debian/copyright as you suggest.

>     Also, the Source header should not point to one particular version.
>     Use the directory where all the tarballs are stored; but if you got
>     it from github, use that URL instead.

Done. The package is indeed based on the tarball release.

>   - In debian/control, why do you depend on dpkg-dev? The package seems
>     to build just fine without it.

This was a side-effect of the hardening options in debian/rules. They caused
lintian to complain that dpkg-dev was required. It isn't, and this is now

>     You should also run wrap-and-sort from devscripts to get the
>     Build-Depends field wrapped and sorted.


>     And if you don't use a VCS for your packaging, you should remove
>     those commented-out lines.


>     Your long description repeats information provided by the short
>     description; see [1] for best practices. It could also be expanded a
>     bit.

I had in fact just repeated the summary from the manpage. I have read the
reference and a few examples and tried to make it more useful. What do you

>     [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-pkg-desc
>   - You could use debhelper compat 9, that should take care of the
>     hardening flags for you.

Done. As above, this fixed the dpkg-dev problem. It also removed the need for
one of the patches.

>     And in debian/rules, you should remove the template comments.


>   - The README doesn't contain useful information for end-users, so you
>     shouldn't install it.


Thanks again for taking the time to review this package. It is appreciated!


James McDonald

Reply to: