On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 23:40, Niels Thykier <ni...@thykier.net> wrote: > Nevertheless I have a few comments about it.
Thank you very much for your time! (: > debian/control: A dependency on ${shlibs:Depends} does not make sense > for Architecture: all packages. This is for architecture dependent > packages only and is calculated from binaries compiled (e.g.) from C or C++. Thanks, will be fixed in next upload! > debian/copyright: Your RFS suggests it is GPL 2+, but your copyright > says GPL (unversioned) and points to the unversioned GPL in > common-licenses (which points to GPL 3). > I looked at the upstream files and all I could find was a few xml > files and gtkrc files suggesting an unversioned "GPL" as well. However, > the upstream site also gives an unversioned GPL and links to [1], which > might imply GPL 3. I'll contact upstream to clarify this and change debian/copyright as/if needed. > Finally, any reason for using DEP-5 revision 59? 135 appears to be the > newest revision. My bad, I'll fix this in the next upload (: One more time -- thanks a lot for you time! Regards, -- Hadret | 433E270B | Twitter: @hadret HDPPA: hadret.rootnode.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktinpoz2qhlz_=mboy0267qlr4m1wtgjjgwhww...@mail.gmail.com