On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Paul Wise <p...@debian.org> wrote: > Please do not use HTML email: > > http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct > > On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Bhavani Shankar R <bh...@ubuntu.com> > wrote: > > > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.1~20100604-1 > > of my package "libgnupdf". > > Some comments: > > Please read libpkg-guide and its two bugs if you haven't already. > > debian/rules upstream target should be named get-orig-source: > > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-debianrules > > debian/watch should not mention lintian. In addition it isn't very > clear, I'd suggest this instead: > > # Right now GNUpdf is under heavy development and they have not > released a version yet. > > debian/changelog need not mention lintian either, except maybe in thanks. > > Insert my standard comment about library package descriptions being > almost duplicates of each other. Think about the audience for each > one. -dev package will be manually installed by people developing apps > using liboauth and also as part of build-depends. The library should > only be installed automatically so it doesn't need a verbose > description. The debug symbols will be manually installed (at least > for now) but don't need the detail of the -dev package. > > Similarly, the library package does not need AUTHORS installed. > > Your orig.tar.gz contains two copies of the source code, one in trunk/ > - I imagine your debian/rules upstream target is broken. Since it is > an autotools based project, I would suggest running upstream's 'make > distcheck' to create the tarball instead of doing manually. If any > files are missing from the result or if it fails to build you can send > upstream a patch. > > There are some files upstream forgot to add a license grant to: > > ./src/base/pdf-stm-be.h: *No copyright* UNKNOWN > ./src/base/pdf-stm-be.c: *No copyright* UNKNOWN > ./torture/unit/runtests.c: UNKNOWN > > The copyright years in debian/control should be 1987 to 2010. > > The info documentation should not be in the library package, instead > put it in the -dev package or a separate documentation package. > > It is a policy violation to put files whose names do not change into > the library package. Please either move the utils and info docs to the > -dev package or split them out into gnupdf-utils/libgnupdf-doc > packages (or similar). > > The package FTBFS in pbuilder (missing build-depends on check). In > addition it requires a newer version of check than is in sid or > released upstream: > > The following required libraries are too old: > > libcheck (svn required) > > In addition, I wonder if the following need to be added to build-deps: > > checking for libjpeg... no > checking for libjbig2dec... no > checking for libcurl... no > checking for libiconv... no > checking for texi2html... no > > I stopped reviewing the package at this point due to the FTBFS. > > Once you figure out how to work around the issues with 'check', please > run the following lintian command: > > lintian --info --display-info --display-experimental --pedantic > --show-overrides --checksums --color auto foo.changes > > > Okay paul thanks for your real good review .. ll work on it
Regards -- Bhavani Shankar.R https://launchpad.net/~bhavi, a proud ubuntu community member. What matters in life is application of mind!, It makes great sense to have some common sense..!
