Bug#714087: ipmiutils/2.9.2-1 review
Hi, Andy,
I’m no DD; I’m not intending to sponsor this ipmiutils, but here’s
what I have to say about the package.
Since you are upstream I’m pointing you at Upstream Guide[1] which
tells that it would be better to leave debian/ directory out of the
release tarball.
In debian/control, you specify Build-Depends relation on debhelper
(>> 9.0.0), why wouldn’t debhelper 9.0.0 be enough? Also, 9 instead of
9.0.0 is used more commonly.
autoconf, automake, autotools-dev and libtool are included in
dependencies of dh-autoreconf and could thus be removed from Build-Deps.
There’s a new Debian Policy version out recently: 3.9.5.[2]
To have a paragraph break in the description, write a space and dot in
a line as the separator:
[…]
and other IPMI tasks.
.
These can be invoked with the metacommand ipmiutil, or via subcommand
[…]
There are two empty lines in the end of debian/control, one would
suffice.
In debian/ipmiutil.lintian-overrides I’d remove completely the
commented-out overrides.
You say that GPL code is disabled by default but in debian/rules you
override the default and configure with “--enable-gpl”. Doesn’t this
create the license conflict?
The file debian/copyright is thorough but it repeats the full text of
BSD 3 clause license several times which makes it a bit hard to read.
You’re referring to it as “BSD-3-Clause” but copyright-format 1.0
specification as “BSD-3-clause” (c is not capitalized).[3]
debian/dirs is not actually needed as the installation system creates
the needed directories.[4]
Thanks for your work,
-- Juhani
[1] https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide
[2] http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/upgrading-checklist.txt
[3] http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-specification
[4] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/dother.en.html#dirs
Reply to: