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

Bug#947550: RFH: salsa.debian.org/debian/dbab



On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 22:06:40 -0500 Tong Sun
<suntong001@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: normal
> 
> I've created/updated the salsa repo at:
> 
>    https://salsa.debian.org/debian/dbab
> 
> For the package of
> 
>   https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/dbab
> 
> The reason that I’m asking for reviewing is that,
> 
> - this is the first time that I created a salsa project all by myself
> - also, this is the first time that I am doing the packaging and
> uploading all by myself
> 
> The package was tested on both gbp and sbuild
> (http://paste.debian.net/1122767/). It's also lintian-clean.
> And I’ve done my best to fix anything I can.
> 
> However, a second pair of eyes, i.e., any kind of reviews and
> suggestions are appreciated.

A couple of pointers from my end..

1. As a general rule, always check your package by running "cme fix
dpkg". Once you do that, please commit the result.
Let me know if you don't understand the result.

2. assets/dbab.service points to a 404 link. Please always run "duck".
Please fix the same :)

3. testsuite-autopkgtest-missing: not a necessity per se, but always
good to have them :)

4. Whilst closing a bug which wants a new upstream release, you should
rather have something like, "New upstream release 1.3.3 (Closes: #946977).

5. I am not sure if you're using that already, but use "gbp dch -a" to
generate a d/ch entry. It's neater that way.

6. I am not particularly sure of "License-Grant" thingy, so I'll leave
it as is.

7. Re: your last commit: 987bf1cff4cfe443ff6d04fd68df5cbac19ce7d2:
You shouldn't really override it. Mostly because it's not false.
You should leave it as is, almost all the packages have it :)
Also, it's not a "warning" or an "error", it's just a "O".
I'd recommend to revert it.

8. There are a couple of bugs open (#876815, #876824). I hope you'd
eventually get there? If it's fixed, please close them as well.

9. Whilst you suggested it was uploaded on 27th December, I can't really
find so on the tracker?

10. Lastly, I can't see any "tags" that you should've pushed.
Ideally, each upstream release warrants an "upstream" tag and each
upload should be tagged as a "debian/<version>" tag. I can just see 1
upstream tag. Can you perhaps push the other ones as well? :)



Best,
Utkarsh

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: