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

Bug#810921: RFS: rep-gtk/1:0.90.8.2-1 [ITA] -- GTK+ binding for librep



On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 07:12:38PM +0000, Jose M Calhariz wrote:
>  * Package name    : rep-gtk

ok, let the party begin! :)

* you removed a old transition package.
  + \o/ yay less cruft in the archive!
  + FYI, I confirmed by `dak rm -Rbn rep-gtk-gnome` that it is a leaf
    package.
  + also please remove debian/rep-gtk-gnome.NEWS
* debian/control:
  + a version costriction in a Suggest is really useless.  As in, you
    have no assurances *at all* that it'll be followed.
    But then, you build-dep on librep >= $version, so you'll get a
    depends on that version, so not all might be lost :)
    tl;dr: you don't need to do anything here, but be aware that
    versioned Suggests are meaningless.
  + the build-dep on autotools-dev is useless, please remove it.
  + I still get vcs-field-not-canonical by lintian.  indeed Vcs-Git is
    wrong (there is a /git/ too much in the middle).  otherwise, you
    might want to use https:// for Vcs-Git too instead of the dumb
    git://.  As you prefer.
  + I have a extended-description-is-probably-too-short, please fix.
* debian/changelog:
  + 2 trailing whitespaces at line 4.
  + "remove upstream debian directory" ???  what's this?
  + "New localization of files for package rep-gtk." and this?
  + "Replace sed command by dh_listpackages." this is not there anymore
  + "Merge the packaging work of Christopher Roy Bratusek." be more
    verbose in this.  short dh, compat 9, dep5, blablabla
  + s/read ability/readability/ maybe?
  + mention the removal of rep-gtk-gnome.
  + you need to target experimental, unstable won't be able to satisfy
    the dependency on librep until the transition start (where you'll
    need to re-upload the packages on unstable.  actually it would be
    enough to have them ready, bug given that there are a lot of
    changes, and you are a sponsored person where there are reviews
    going on, better have them in experimental, and re-upload them in
    unstable later).
* debian/rules:
  + override_dh_configure is unneed.  as I said with librep, those flags
    are already exported in compat 9.
    - also , there is trailing whitespace here, but if you remove the
      whole line...
  + override_dh_install just to call dh_install ? ;)
  + override_dh_installexamples => be aware you can also write the
    directory name in debian/examples (up to you if you prefer small
    files in debian/ or lines in d/rules)
  + don't DH_VERBOSE need to be exported to work?
* you're building static libraries.  Do you really need them?  In Debian
  we don't like static libraries.  Given that this is a standard autofoo
  package, --disable-static to configure should do the trick.
  + this will also get rid of unstripped-static-library and
    non-empty-dependency_libs-in-la-file lintian tags.
* something to say about https://bugs.debian.org/680449 ?


-- 
regards,
                        Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540      .''`.
more about me:  http://mapreri.org                              : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri                  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: