Bug#869926: RFS: oprofile/1.2.0-1 [ITP]
Hi Andrey,
I think I did all the changes you suggested, can you take a look on it
again, please?
> Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
>
> I still see a lot of old junk in debian/control:
> - did you write that Build-Depends? if no, please write them from scratch,
> making sure they are complete and necessary.
I Checked all the dependencies and now just the required dependencies are
in control file.
> - why Conflicts: oprofile-modules*? There are no such packages in last
> releases.
Fixed.
> - Replaces: oprofile-common? Suggests: oprofile-gui? Replaces: oprofile
> (<< 0.9.6-1ubuntu1)? The same.
Fixed.
> - oprofile gets a Depends: binutils via libbfd-2.29-system.so, it
> shouldn't also Recommend it.
Fixed.
> You don't need .shlibs when you use .symbols.
Fixed.
> Why does the oprofile user need /bin/bash as a shell?
It doesn't need it, fixed.
> Why do you need the debconf snippet in postrm?
Actually don't need this step in purge as it doesn't store any configuration and
it doesn't use the debconf. As postrm was just doing that, I removed it.
> What is /usr/doc/oprofile which is removed in prerm?
It seems a deprecated file and oprofile doesn't install it. As prerm was just
doing that, I removed it.
> Please don't mix debhelper files with and without package prefixes (this
> is about maintainer script files).
> Instead of editing .la you should delete it.
Fixed.
> Instead of manually installing to debian/oprofile and manually moving to
> other package dirs you should use dh_install to move from debian/tmp to
> package dirs.
Fixed.
> Please upgrade to the current Standards-Version.
Fixed.
> Please switch to the debhelper compat level 10.
Fixed.
> Is libjvmti_oprofile intended to be a public shared library? It looks like
> a plugin.
Yes, it is a plugin, I moved it to the correct location.
> --
> WBR, wRAR
Reply to: