Bug#777671: firejail packaging
Hi Reiner,
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Reiner Herrmann <reiner@reiner-h.de> wrote:
> While packaging it, I sent a few patches upstream, which is the reason
> why I intended to wait for a new upstream release before submitting it, so
> that those patches can be dropped.
But there's no problem only later removing it from the package when
upstream releases a new version. The package needs to go through our
NEW queue anyway which needs time. Newer versions can be uploaded
meanwhile.
> But since you are interested in the package, I uploaded my current state.
> Woule you be interested in reviewing it and sponsoring an upload?
Sure. Generally it's good. Only a few nitpicks:
- extra line at the end of copyright,
- also an extra line at the end of rules,
- rules file format may be noted on the second line with '# -*- makefile -*-',
- you may add DH_VERBOSE option (uncommented ATM) to rules,
- it's a small package and probably not worth it, but you may add
'--parallel' to 'dh $@' in rules,
- in control, I'd not start the long description with the package name
as it's already known,
- I don't see why you install README, the description part is already
in control, plus the download, build and install part is not relevant
for the users (they can do and maybe already did it with apt-get
install),
- patches needs to be updated with newer releases, that's why I prefer
removing extra files in rules and no patching / while nothing wrong
with your way,
- the use of GPL 2.0 (dot+zero) in copyright, as it's noted 2 or 3
everywhere including the second line of the package COPYING file, in
its Wiki[1] or on the GNU license page[2]; only the filenames may
contain that ending.
If you change any of these, I can wait or if you want, upload it as is.
Regards,
Laszlo/GCS
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
[2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
Reply to: