On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:08:03AM +0100, Corentin Desfarges wrote: > > >When I builded commit > >ID aebf1274866f7e5417efdd4ee8aa3fbdf50e6dc1 and using the last lintian > >version from unstable (which might be more picky than some other > >version) I've got: > >E: fw4spl source: source-is-missing > >Apps/VRRender/doc/source/_static/jquery.js > > -> Seems to remain > > I thought it was fixed by the commit > b713ebad050ea798e8e57710ae5b212888a48d32, in > which I exluded the Apps/VRRender/doc directory from d/copyright. I guess I > misunderstood your answer about it. Is is not enough ? Must I to remove them > from the upstream tarball ?
Files-Excluded has the explicite purpose to exclude (==remove) files from the upstream tarball. > I'd rather don't do that because I guess that if this > files are there, developers had certainly a good reason. But I'm not sure. You need to symlink to the debian packaged version using dh-linktree. If it is not clear what to do I'd recommend checking some example package (for instance gnumed-client). > >W: fw4spl source: changelog-should-mention-nmu > >W: fw4spl source: source-nmu-has-incorrect-version-number 0.9.2-1 > > -> Seems you fixed both in last commit > > Yes I do. It was caused by different email addresses and names between > d/control > and d/changelog. Yes. :-) > >I: fw4spl source: quilt-patch-missing-description remove_fwItkIOTest.patch > >I: fw4spl source: quilt-patch-missing-description set_media_as_bundle.patch > >I: fw4spl source: quilt-patch-missing-description add_easy_launcher.patch > >I: fw4spl source: quilt-patch-missing-description fix_unit_tests.patch > > -> Please add DEP3 descriptions (if in doubt what this mean you might like > > to use `lintian -i ...`). > > I work on it today. Fine. > >W: fw4spl: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/launcher > >W: fw4spl: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/launcher-0.1 > > -> Would be nice to have but we could live with this for the moment. > > However, what I'm more concerned about is the very generic name of the > > binary. I wonder whether /usr/bin/fw4spl or /usr/bin/fw4spl-launcher > > would be more apropriate and this also should be suggested to upstream. > > Short and simple manpages have been added by the last commit. I noticed this after sending my mail. > About the binary name, I agree > with you, I work in it the afternoon. As I said: I also recommend discussing this with upstream. > >Since I'm a bit in a hurry I'd recommend to ask on > >[email protected] where this kind of question is easily > >handled. > > Yes I'll ask them about it. Thanks for your patience to investigate this. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
