Bug#896970: RFS: odp/1.19.0.0-1 [ITP]

[Lumin <cdluminate@gmail.com>]

control: tag -1 +moreinfo
control: owner -1 !

Hi Dmitry,

Thank you for this package. Here are some problems found in your package:

1. This package misses dependency libconfig-dev

2. Please fix the lintian warnings. e.g.

     W: odp-doc: privacy-breach-generic

3. debhelper compat level and the standards-version is a bit old.
    The latest compat is 11, and standards-version is 4.1.4.
    See debhelper(7) section COMPATIBILITY LEVELS for compat checklist.
    See https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ for the standards upgrading
    checklist.

4. Please break the lines whose length exceeds 80 characters in
debian/control and rules.

5. Could you explain why these lines exist? Package libodp-linux-dev
seems not exist.

 43 Conflicts: libodp-linux-dev
 44 Provides: libodp-linux-dev

also, package libodphelper-dev depends on the non-existing package.

 53 Package: libodphelper-dev
 54 Architecture: any
 55 Section: libdevel
 56 Depends: libodphelper119 (= ${binary:Version}),
 57          libodp-linux-dev,

6. Must we provide a example package with pre-built binaries shipped?

77 Package: odp-linux-examples

   Why can't we put the source of these examples into the doc package?
   Or why don't we choose a name such as libodp-tools / libodp-utils
   to avoid ambiguity?

7. your patch directory is empty, could you please remove it?

8. Changelog: This is the first-time upload. Could you change the file
    so that it looks like this:

PACKAGE (VERSION) UNRELEASED; urgency=low

  * Initial release. (Closes: #XXXXXX)

 -- maintainer <mail>  Thu, 26 Apr 2018 13:06:09 +0000

9. debian/docs This file looks useless ?

10. Why is the package containing
./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libodp-linux.so.119.0.0
      named libodp-generic119?

11. Why is dh_auto_test overrode to empty?

Please feel free to ask if you have any question about
the above points. And have a good day :-)

-- 
Best,