Hi Benoît, On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 05:05:50PM +0200, Benoît Knecht wrote: > I took a look at your package, here are a few comments:
Thanks for your detailed review! Your remarks are very helpful. > - lintian reports the following warnings: > > P: cwm source: unversioned-copyright-format-uri > http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5 > I: cwm source: debian-watch-file-is-missing > P: cwm: no-upstream-changelog > P: cwm: no-homepage-field > I: cwm: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign usr/share/man/man5/cwmrc.5.gz:231 > I: cwm: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign usr/share/man/man5/cwmrc.5.gz:245 I have fixed most of these. There is no upstream changelog as there is none provided. I have set the homepage to the github page of the port which is probably the most useful place for a user to find out about it. There isn't an actual site for cwm itself. > - In debian/copyright, fgetln.c is licensed under the BSD-2-clause > license; and instead of repeating the ISC twice, you could factor it > out in its own standalone paragraph. Thanks, I had missed that. I have updated debian/copyright as you suggest. > Also, the Source header should not point to one particular version. > Use the directory where all the tarballs are stored; but if you got > it from github, use that URL instead. Done. The package is indeed based on the tarball release. > - In debian/control, why do you depend on dpkg-dev? The package seems > to build just fine without it. This was a side-effect of the hardening options in debian/rules. They caused lintian to complain that dpkg-dev was required. It isn't, and this is now fixed. > You should also run wrap-and-sort from devscripts to get the > Build-Depends field wrapped and sorted. Done. > And if you don't use a VCS for your packaging, you should remove > those commented-out lines. Done. > Your long description repeats information provided by the short > description; see [1] for best practices. It could also be expanded a > bit. I had in fact just repeated the summary from the manpage. I have read the reference and a few examples and tried to make it more useful. What do you think? > [1] > http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-pkg-desc > > - You could use debhelper compat 9, that should take care of the > hardening flags for you. Done. As above, this fixed the dpkg-dev problem. It also removed the need for one of the patches. > And in debian/rules, you should remove the template comments. Done. > - The README doesn't contain useful information for end-users, so you > shouldn't install it. Removed. Thanks again for taking the time to review this package. It is appreciated! Cheers, -- James McDonald -- 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/20120626093634.ga13...@postcursor.vm.bytemark.co.uk