To make review easier, here are the changes from the previous draft.
Following are my replies to your comments.
> 4) debian-changelog-line-too-long:
> 5) no-nmu-in-changelog and source-nmu-has-incorrect-version-number:
> 6) spelling-error-in-changelog Debian Debian (duplicate word):
All of them are addressed.
> 7) bad-exception-format-in-dep5-copyright expat with public-domain:
I tried to replace the license with a new one "Expat and public-domain",
but it looks like lintian does not recognise it as a single term for some reason.
For more details, take a look at:
I suspect this is just a false positive.
That said, if this is really a problem and needs a fix, I will try another _expression_ for that license.
> 8) invalid-short-name-in-dep5-copyright:
> 9) license-file-listed-in-debian-copyright COPYING:
> 10) Files: debian/*:
> 11) Files: manuals/ewfinfo.1 ...:
> 12) unused-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright gpl3+ [debian/copyright:133]:
> 13) Copyright: Copyright (C):
All of these issues are addressed.
> Great, the debian/ tag is not generally needed by the way, as the
> sponsor is the one who should push that ideally, but I don't mind if
> you push it. I know gbp will work smoother if you create a debian/ tag
> (it lets you do gbp push without extra parameters if there's a tag).
Thanks for pointing this out.
OK, I understand that debian/ tag is not necessary in asking for a sponsor.
> 12) older-debian-watch-file-standard 3:
> 13) out-of-date-standards-version 4.5.0:
> 14) silent-on-rules-requiring-root:
> 15) debian-rules-uses-as-needed-linker-flag:
All of the above are addressed.
As for 14), two different types of binary packages were created with/without "Rules-Require-Root: no".
Then they were compared using diffoscope, showing no outputs.
> 16) typo-in-manual-page:
I reported this issue to the upstream and sent a pull request as well:
It looks like the maintainer made a similar change and the issue has been addressed:
See the comparison result for details of how it was addressed:
> I've tried to do a more thorough review as you seem interested in
> learning all of it. Please let me know if you'd like me to only
> mention what is required (which would be totally fine as you're
> contributing and whatever you do is still good for Debian).
Thanks as usual for taking time.
Yes, I enjoy learning much about packaging,
so I would appreciate it if you give me thorough feedback as you've done so far.
> On a high level, I suggest always making sure lintian gets run on your
> build process, preferably with the following parameters: '-i', '-I',
> '-E', '--pedantic'.
> You don't need to solve all lintian findings, some of them might not
> make much sense or just not be doable at all, but it's good to try to
> understand at least what's critical so you can make a judgement call.
Thanks also for pointing this out.
I remember you made a similar comment for a different package - unhide.
I'm embarrassed to say that I was working on unhide before reading your reply on libewf and suggestion as above.
Sorry for making you repeat the same thing.
Yeah, I will try to add the parameters to my build process (debuild) and, if possible, use a salsa CI job as well.
Best,
Fukui