On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 09:29:55PM +0000, Jose M Calhariz wrote: > Today I didn't review all yours remarks. But in the spirit of release > early and release often here goes my today effort.
yay, I definitely approve this ;) I hadn't gone deeper, just commented on your last changes here. > On 07/02/16 22:01, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 08:40:10PM +0000, Jose M Calhariz wrote: > >> On 06/02/16 23:41, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > >>> Umh, couldn't you turn d/rules to use the dh sequencer? > >> I don't know enough and lintian show many problems with upstream d/rules. > > well, let's fix them, then :) > > Attached there is a d/rules using short dh, may you try it and bend it > > better to the needs of this package? > > I managed to make it compile, but for a reason I don't know I needed to > add the following lines: > > override_dh_auto_configure: > cp /usr/share/misc/config.guess . > cp /usr/share/misc/config.sub . > dh_auto_configure --parallel that's so weird. even more in light of the new dh_update_autotools_config which is run automatically by dh >= 9.20160114 and do exactly that. Are you testing your package in an update sid chroot? > I have tried many ideas but was only this way that it build also, it did build here without them. > >>> * d/copyright: consider write a copyright-format 1.0 one? at a first > >>> sight doesn't look too much work. > >> Done > > though it's not compliant, and indeed lintian is noisy on it, please try > > to figure out what's wrong with it and fix it. > > I believe blindly following lintian here is enough, though it would be > > nice if you could understand what's the problem by yourself :) > > I fix it, but I don't understand why :-) ok, I'm going to assume you read all of https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ and somehow did not understand it. DEP-5 copyright is RFC 822-compliant file where there are basically 3 types of paragraphs: * the header paragraph => you know it * the file paragraphs * the stand alone license paragraphs the file paragraph is composed by at least * Files: * Copyright: * License: in your earlier attempt at it you put a blank line between Copyright and License, and de-facto created a separated pargraph, totally disconnected from the previous one. That one by itself was a compliant stand alone license paragraph, but 1) it was repeated by another one later 2) it was not refereced by a License: line from a file paragraph. I hope I made the thing at least clearer. > >>> * please try to get a reproducible buildable package, from what I see it > >>> wouldn't be difficult at all. ♥ THANK YOU! :D > >>> there are 57 open bugs, are you telling me none of them get closed by > >>> this upload? :\ ok, I saw you added some closes: to the bug, and added a line to the changelog saying that you closed those bugs. meh. you should explicitly list what you are closing, briefly; probably the best way is in a indented list, something like * New upstream version. + Fix blabla due to fofo. Closes: #xxxxx + Fix ciaciaaicegow. Closes: #yyyyy And adding to the changelog a sentence like "I closed bugs" is totally useless, just remove it :) -- 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 `-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature