Hi Sean, Thank you very much for all your help and for this review! Would you please pull my working copy from here: git+ssh://git.debian.org/git/pkg-emacsen/pkg/muse-el.git here: https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-emacsen/pkg/muse-el.git or consult this: https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-emacsen/pkg/muse-el.git/ to see how I've implemented the changes you've advised. Further questions follow inline. On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 03:38:01PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > In the future, when submitting a new bug, please use X-Debbugs-CC: rather > than CC: so that the bug gets assigned a number before reaching my > inbox. Would you please share how to get X-Debbugs-CC: to show up in mutt's edit_headers? It seems to be ignored unless it is set using this: my_hdr X-Debbugs-CC: bogus_value > I've split my review into two sections: things that I would consider > must-fixes before an upload to Debian, and suggested improvements. The > latter aren't strictly necessary, but they would help demonstrate to a > potential sponsor that you are committed to maintaining this package in > Debian. > > Must-fixes > ========== > > 1. Your changelog could do with some work. > > - you should close the ITA bug Close the ITA bug in the changelog? Do I need to send a control email to the ITA bug (something like "also affects")? I anticipate a "closes bugs improperly" lintian error. > - "Update format." -- from what to what? I'm not sure what format the old copyright was. Where "Format:" is usually found it said this: This package was debianized by Trent Buck <trentbuck@gmail.com> on Thu, 23 Jun 2005 13:12:12 +1000. Updated to this: Format: http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ > 3. README.Debian should have a single timestamp. Remove the previous > maintainer's timestamp, add subheadings for the parts added by each of > you, and put your timestamp at the bottom. I'm not adding any new information so much as updating the paths to reflect the new install locations. Please let me know if this is a more clear to do it this way than my original "Whenever path X is mentioned, it actually refers to path Y". The upside is the paths can now be copied and pasted, useful full-text search, usefully grepped etc, but I'm not sure if I've sufficiently attributed the original author. > 5. There are a lot of Lintian warnings. Please make the package > Lintian-clean. I'm having trouble with "W: elpa-muse: syntax-error-in-debian-news-file line 68 "found eof where expected first heading", and have tried synchronising my date stamp with the one in changelog, removing '*'s and '-'s, and several white-space experiments...to no avail. > > Do my patches look ok? > > 8. They need patch headers, preferably conforming to DEP-3, explaining > what each of them is for. Try to include a Forwarded: header, in > particular. I've added headers, and I've added you to the "Reviewed-by: " one. Why do I need the "Forwarded: " header when my patch is already checked into git.debian.org? > > Should elpafied packages continue to be arch-independent? > > Yup. When debugging some of my failed experimental modifications I noticed that this is a binary package. Is arch-independent interpreted source + docs still a binary package? As far as I can tell, the QuickStart.pdf is the only binary. > Suggestions > =========== > Complete. Please let me know if I've correctly addressed all ellipted items. Cheers, Nicholas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature