[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFS: ruby-text 0.2.0



Dear Olivier,

On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 11:25:47AM +0200, Olivier Sallou wrote:
> Hi,
> I have packaged ruby-text on alioth and it is ready  for review/upload.
> It is lintian clean, tested, and built with pbuilder.

> Could someone review and upload it?

Thanks for packaging ruby-text. I cannot upload your package, but I am
having a look at your package right now. The package builds indeed
correctly in pbuilder.

I found a few details, that once fixed may result in a better package:

- debian/copyright: you could use a single standalone paragraph License:
  GPL-2+, and refer to it in the two Files: paragraph.
  The file lib/text/porter_stemming is in the public domain, and not
  GPL-2+. This sould be mentionned in the copyright file.

- There is no LICENSE file in the source, but the homepage of the
  project mentions that ruby-text is licensed as Ruby, which is GPL-2 or
  specific Ruby conditions.

- Some people consider that http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5 is not a
  versioned url for the format of DEP-5 (lintian --pedantic on .dsc
  warns about that). You may prefer to use
  http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?revision=174
  But as I understand, it is a more a matter of taste, until DEP-5
  reaches its final destination on the website.

- lintian -i -I --pedantic on the .deb returns an absence of upstream
  changelog, but there is nothing you could do about that.
 
- lintian -i -I --pedantic on .dsc warns also about a white space
  problem in the field Uploaders (too many whitespaces after the colon).
  The description could also be reviewed. There is a missing period
  after the enumeration of the algorithm (with an extra white space that
  should probably be removed at the beginning of the same line). There
  is no definite article for the beginning of the second sentence, and
  there is no mention of Ruby in the description (although it could be
  deduced from other fields that it is indeed a Ruby lib).  I would have
  written: *This* Ruby library...  library...) 

- the test suite could have been run more simply with this one-liner in
  debian/ruby-tests.rb:
    Dir["test/*.rb"].each {|f| require f}
  There is in particular no need in this case to modify the $LOAD_PATH.
  It is taken care of by test_runner.rb.

Best wishes,

  Cédric

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: