Bug#864428: RFS: bitfield/1.0.1-1 [ITP #864358]
On 07/28/2017 07:20 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Some other comments.
>
> * The debian/changelog should:
> - Contain only the first line.
> - Have 1.0.0-1 (and not -3) as Debian release, as no previous version
> were uploaded to Debian.
Done.
> * Is there a reason why you're using debhelper 9 and not 10?
No reason. Moved to version 10.
> * I would recommend the use of "wrap-and-sort -t -a" (from devscripts)
> to make debian/control cleaner.
Advice taken.
> * Your long description is a bit too short. When searching on a search
> engine, I can see there's lots of this type of library. Your long
> description doesn't tell where your library differentiate. Also, your
> long description for the -dev package is only 2 lines long, which even
> triggers a lintian warning that you should have seen. I would recommend
> copying the long desc of libbitfield1 on top of the 2 lines of
> libbitfield-dev as well.
Done.
> * There's some lintian errors about spelling in man pages. Please fix them.
Fixed 2 out of 3. The last one is a false positive ("long long" is intentional).
> * Have you considered using DEB_BUILD_MAINT_OPTIONS=hardening=+all in
> your debian/rules ? That's usually a good idea, and lintian also
> complains about this.
Added.
> * The .symbols file contains the debian revision. Typically, this
> shouldn't be in, as the symbols are exported from the upstream version,
> and wont change on debian revisions.
Fixed.
Best regards,
Vitalie Ciubotaru
Reply to: