On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:06:28PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>
> * debian/watch: best remove the comments, and probably unsplit the
> line.
Done
> * debian/changelog: might want to use NMU-style numbers until you
> find a sponsor who wants to upload a particular version of your
> package, and then you would consolidate all the changelog
> entries and upload -1 to mentors.d.n.
I'm not sure what this means in practice. The NMU version should
be 0.1 (i.e. 0.8.0-0.1), and then finally when it is uploaded,
it would be changed to 1. At his point it would make sense,
because this is not the final 0.8.0-1 version anyway, but even
though the 0.8.0-1 would not be uploaded to the official Debian
repository, I still let people use my unofficial repository. So,
maybe I should just remove the ...upload to Debian... line,
until it is actually uploaded.
> * debian/compat, debian/control: you might want to use debhelper 4
> to allow easier backports and ports to Ubuntu
Done
> * debian/rules: you might want to use the --list-missing or
> --fail-missing options to dh_install
Done
> * debian/control: python-rfxswf depends on python2.4-rfxswf, while
> python 2.3 is currently the default in debian.
Fixed
> * swftools binary package contains fonts from the gsfonts package,
> perhaps you could depend on that package instead? You might also
> want to ask upstream to remove the fonts and instead ask people
> to download the fonts themselves.
>
> http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_contents.pl?searchmode=filelist&word=gsfonts&version=unstable&arch=all
Good catch :) I'll talk to the upstream, but I suspect that
they want to keep some kind of minimal set of fonts in the
tarball.
Anyway, I'll make a symlink
/usr/share/swftools/fonts -> ../fonts/type1/gsfonts.
> * You might want to remove the questions about
> compiling/installing from the FAQ. Also, suggest to upstream
> that they should split those out into FAQ.INSTALL or something.
Yes, I mentioned this to the upstream, but it might take a
while. Meanwhile I'll patch the FAQ.
> * Not sure if I said this, but you might want to upload
> avi2swf/wav2swf stuff to debian-unofficial.org
Yes you did :) I just thought that since we don't have the
official Debian package, there is no point of having unofficial
either. I'll see if the nonfree version could be uploaded there.
> * orig.tar.gz: there doesn't seem to be source code for
> swft_loader.swf and tessel_loader.swf, how did upstream generate
> these?
I don't know. I haven't checked the earlier tarballs to see if
they have always been delivered as binaries in the tarball.
> I hope you can find a sponsor, I look forward to seeing swftools in
> debian!
Thanks for your comments and support Paul.
> --
> bye,
> pabs
>
> http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Simo
--
:r ~/.signature
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
