2005/9/29, Paul Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 17:19 +0800, Emfox Zhou wrote: > > > > * short and long description in debian/control needs improvement. > > > A one line long description is not enough. > > improved > > I suggest adjusting the grammar. ahhh, sorry for my poor English, i'll try to improve it..
> > > * debian/rules: remove dh_make cruft and commented out dh_*/dpatch > > > lines > > removed some, but i use dpatch, so it's needed > > I refer to this line, which is commented out: > #dpatch call-all -a=pkg-info >patch-stamp got it. > > > > * debian/manpage.1: that isn't a real manpage, delete it or write > > > one > > > > deleted, i think a GUI apps needn't have a manpage > > Debian policy is that all binaries should have a manual page. You may > have trouble finding a sponsor without this. > > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s12.1 > > Lintian warning: > W: filezilla3: binary-without-manpage filezilla > N: > N: Each binary in /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, /bin, /sbin or /usr/games should > N: have a manual page > N: > N: Note, that though the `man' program has the capability to check for > N: several program names in the NAMES section, each of these programs > N: should have its own manual page (a symbolic link to the appropriate > N: manual page is sufficient) because other manual page viewers such as > N: xman or tkman don't support this. > N: > N: Refer to Policy Manual, section 12.1 for details. > N: > W: filezilla3: binary-without-manpage fzsftp ok, i'll write one. > > Additional notes: > > * please ship docs/* > * the upstream changelog is empty, best to not ship that > * same with the README/NEWS just ignore them? is it ok? > * some additional lintian/linda warnings to fix: > > lintian: > W: filezilla3 source: source-contains-cvs-conflict-copy locales/.#zh_CN.po.1.2 > N: > N: Package contains a CVS conflict copy. These are generated by CVS when > N: a conflict was detected while merging local changes with the updates > N: from the source repository. The file name is `.#file.version', where > N: file is the original filename and version the revision your > N: modifications were based on. > N: > W: filezilla3 source: source-contains-cvs-conflict-copy locales/.#zh_CN.po.1.3 > linda: > W: filezilla3; Package Build-Depends on automake* or autoconf. > This package Build-Depends on automake* or autoconf. This is almost > never a good idea, as the package should run autoconf or automake on > the source tree before the source package is built. hmmm, i'm not clear about it, the source need automake1.8, even automake1.7 will failed on it, how should i declare this? > > > > * why didn't you file an ITP bug before you started packaging and > > > close it in debian/changelog. Please do this now > > > > done. sorry, i don't know i should do it, but just finding sponsor at > > debian-mentors list. > > Hmmmm, I wonder where this should be spelled out so people get it right: > > 1. Get interested in a package > 2. Find it is not in debian > 3. Check if it can be packaged and if it is already being packaged > 4. Decide if you want to package and maintain it > 5. File an ITP (intent to package) bug to *prevent duplication* of > work > 6. Either upload it, or register your need for a sponsor on s.d.n > 7. Search for a sponsor on debian-mentors and other fora pretty good hints -- GnuPG Public Key: 0xF7142EC2
