Hi Reiner, On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Reiner Herrmann <[email protected]> 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
