Bug#677935: RFS: cwm/5.1-1 [ITP] -- Lightweight and efficient window manager for X11
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  for best practices. It could also be expanded a
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
>  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!