On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 20:44, Sandro Tosi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Chris, > > On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 19:42, Chris AtLee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "drobo-utils". > > I'll give it a look at the package, taking the code from PAPT svn repo.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/deb/python-apps/drobo-utils$ uscan --report Processing watchfile line for package drobo-utils... Newest version on remote site is 0.3.0-1, local version is 0.3.2-1 drobo-utils: remote site does not even have current version mh, not a good start ;) Works with this line: http://sf.net/drobo-utils/drobo-utils_(.+)\.tar\.gz Please, prod the upstream author to remove the debian/ dir from the upstream tarball (if he wants, can join PAPT and maintain that part in our repo) and to name the dir in the tarball with the classic <name>-<ver> instead of "trunk". What about merge the 2 entries in debian/changelog? At the end, this will be the first revision uploaded ;) Is Peter really the maintainer of this package? I just don't want you to confuse this field with upstream author: the Maintainer field contains the person primarly responsable for the *Debian* package, not the upstream part of the code. Given that all the commits was done by your user and that "This package was debianized by Chris AtLee", I think that this field has to contain either your name or the team (at your choice). Oh, please note that I'm fine with Peter being there, but I just want to be sure you have clear its meaning. :) What about adding Vcs-{Browser,Svn} and Homepage fields? Could you please insert the GPLv3 boilerplate in debian/copyright file? It's enought the "usual" stuff "This program is free software: ...". What is this "The Debian packaging is (C) 2008, informavore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"? Who is the copyright holder for the packaging (so debian/ dir in PAPT repo I'll upload) (connected to above)? "informavore" is for sure wrong ;) Moreover, it's better to state the same license for both upstream and packaging code, so both GPLv3 (not clear for the packaging part). It might be better to refer to GPL-3 file, not to the generic GPL link. You can merge the "rm -f" and dh_clean commands in clean target (they do the same job). ./DroboDMP.c needs better copyright info what about writing the two manpages (even if minimal) missing (and submit them upstream)? Given that python-qt4 is defined as "essential" in upstream README.txt, maybe it would be better to have in Depends not Recommends? Just wondering, is the Depends on libsgutils1 really needed? I would expected misc:Depends to introduce it if NEEDED by libs, but that's not the case, and even a fast inspectoin of .so seems to confirm it: $ objdump -x lib.linux-i686-2.5/DroboDMP.so | grep NEEDED NEEDED libpthread.so.0 NEEDED libc.so.6 Both descriptions need a little more attention: reading the description, I really can't understand what the package does :S For example you need to clarify what drobos are, what kind of dashboard is, etc etc (something to give an idea of what the package contains to guys who know nothing about it (like me)). I think it's enough for a first check ;) Feel free to contact me in case of clarification ([EMAIL PROTECTED] for a fast reply) and commit your changes into PAPT repo (I'd prefer using the same revision, -1), then get back to me again for another check. Thanks for your contribution (so far and futurable), Sandro -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, Morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]