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

Bug#696337: Review of dualword package



Hi, Alexander!

Please note I'm not a Debian Maintainer. I can't sponsor packages.
Here are some points about dualword you should consider. I'm sorry if I
sound too impolite...

 * I couldn't build the binary package at all. With cowbuilder:

The following packages have unmet dependencies:
 pbuilder-satisfydepends-dummy : Depends: libestools2.0-dev (>= 2.0)
which is a virtual package. Depends: libxapian-dev (>= 1.2) but it is
not going to be installed. Unable to resolve dependencies!  Giving up...

   Probably caused by dependency libestools2.0-dev (>= 2.0) which is a
   virtual package, but here I'm not sure.
   I also tried building by hand (amd64) and I could pass that problem
   adding "-d" to debuild. But, now there's no packages to build,
   because it has been specified "Architecture: i386".

 * Lintian reports some warnings on this package, here's what I get:

W: dualword source: package-depends-on-hardcoded-libc dualword depends
W: dualword source: non-native-package-with-native-version
W: dualword source: ancient-standards-version 3.8.4 (current is 3.9.4)
W: dualword source: debian-watch-file-should-use-sf-redirector line 2

   with "--info" parameter Lintian shows suggestions how to fix these.
 * About lintian overrides, the section must be specified in small
   caps. "Section: Education" and "Section: education" are different.
 * You have specified "Architecture: i386" in debian/control and "-w32"
   in QMAKE_CXXFLAGS in src/dualword.unix.pri. Is there a reason for
   that? As I wrote, this might have caused this package to be
   somewhat unbuildable on amd64 machines.
 * There are also other hard-coded library depends on the binary
   package. Please remove those, they are handled by ${shlibs:Depends}.
 * The binary is not hardened [1]. You could switch to debhelper
   compatibility level 9 (echo 9 > debian/compat) to ease hardening.
 * debian/copyright could follow Machine-readable format[1] (although
   this is optional according to policy manual[2]).

[1]http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/
[2]http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightformat

Kind regards,
Juhani Numminen


Reply to: