Bug#750708: RFS: audiotools/2.21-3 [ITP] -- Collection of audio handling programs for the command line
Control: tag -1 + moreinfo
Hi Eric,
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Eric Shattow <lucent@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Eriberto Mota <eriberto@eriberto.pro.br> wrote:
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> If it is an ITP, the package no exist in Debian yet. So, you musn't report revisions. Please, remove all entries about the -2 and -3 revisions in d/changelog.
>>
>> I suggest you put the upstream e-mail address in d/copyright. Searching in Google: bri@biosci.umn.edu and tuffy@users.sourceforge.net.
>
> Yes, added upstream e-mail address, cleaned up (removed) revisions:
>
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/audiotools/audiotools_2.21-1.dsc
>
>>
>> Note that I am not able to upload your package. But I want to say that your package appears very good.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Eriberto
>
> Thanks! Who can sponsor this package, should I offer it to python packagers?
Sorry for not following up on my earlier debian-mentors review until now!
Agreed with Eriberto, your package is in pretty good shape, however
there are a few more issues:
Blockers:
- debian/copyright needs the full text of CC-BY-SA-3.0-US and
CC-BY-SA-2.5 ("visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/";
won't pass ftpmaster review)
Non-blockers, but please fix anyhow:
- your very first debian/changelog entry should always just be akin to
"Initial release. (Closes: #550216)" (i.e. your ITP bug report). You
don't need to mention any of your other changes.
- rename debian/audiotools.docs to debian/docs
(debian/package.{docs,install,manpages,...} is redundant if your
source package only builds a single binary package)
If you haven't already, please forward those patches upstream.
Patching in license headers the way you're doing right now should only
be a short-term thing, and you want it upstream-ed asap.
Reply to: