Bug#715023: RFS: bitz-server/0.1.1-1 [ITP]

[Uditha Atukorala <uditha@geniusse.com>]

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org> wrote:
> (I don't intend to sponsor this package.)
>
Understood :). Hight appreciate your feedback though.

> Why is .orig.tar different than the one uscan downloads?
>
Watch file links to github tags / releases but the git repository does
not contain final autoconf / automake outputs (configure, Makefile.in
etc.) whereas the orig.tar is the output from 'make dist'. Not sure
whether this is desirable or not. Any suggestions or recommendations?

> The package FTBFS here:
>
> checking for a Python interpreter with version >= 2.7... none
> configure: error: no suitable Python interpreter found
>
Added missing python2.7-dev build dependency to the debian/control file.

> Lintian emits:
>
> I: bitz-server source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field
> "section" in package libbitz-server-mod-py
> I: bitz-server source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field
> "section" in package libbitz-server-mod-py-modules
> I: bitz-server source: duplicate-short-description bitz-server
> bitz-server-dev
> I: bitz-server source: duplicate-short-description libicap0 libicap0-dev
> P: bitz-server source: unversioned-copyright-format-uri
> http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5

Fixed

>
> My pet peeve: you build-depend on "debhelper (>= 9.0.0)", but debhelper no
> longer uses such a versioning scheme. You probably wanted to say "debhelper
> (>= 9)".

Changed

>
> --
> Jakub Wilk
>

--
Udi