Hi Brendan I've reviewed your updates and have the following comments:
1) debian/control Please add a Homepage field to the source package entry: Homepage: http://www.resara.org/ I'd also drop the Vcs-* entries; These need to refer to the Vcs location for the packaging, not resara itself - its probably easier for this first release if we just rely on the packaging branchs that will be created in launchpad post upload/acceptance. I would also switch the Maintainer field as follows: Maintainer: Ubuntu Developers <ubuntu-devel-disc...@lists.ubuntu.com> XSBC-Original-Maintainer: Brendan Powers <bren...@resara.com> Remember once this is in Ubuntu any developer with the right upload permissions will be able to help maintain this package. 2) Empty files in debian/ ./rds.dirs ./docs ./rds.install Should be dropped. 3) libXXX-dev packaging naming Thanks for switching the libXXX package names to be ABI versioned; however the -dev package for each does not need to be versioned - this means that other packages that depend on these libraries will automatically transition with a rebuild if/when you bump the ABI version of the libXXX package. 4) qtrpc2 I still don't understand the rationale for having a snapshot of this library in the rds source tree; why would we not just package this library up separately? 5) icons link override_dh_install: mkdir -p debian/tmp/usr/. mkdir -p debian/rdsconsole/usr/lib/rds/icons ln -s /usr/share/rds/icons debian/rdsconsole/usr/lib/rds/icons Because you are creating /usr/lib/rds/icons before creating the link to /usr/share/rds/icons its getting nested - i.e /usr/lib/rds/icsons/icons. 6) debian/copyright You should add a License entry for LGPL-2 explicitly: License: LGPL-2 On Debian GNU/Linux system you can find the complete text of the LGPL-2 license in '/usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-2' I'd also just refer to each of the associated common license at the bottom of the License fields for LGPL-2+ and GPL-2+ rather than having them at the bottom of the file which I don't believe is machine readable. Also the license fields should be formatted in-line with http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch- controlfields#s-f-Description. Otherwise they won't display correctly when parsed/formatted. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/930422 Title: [needs-packaging] rds Resara Server To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/930422/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
