Hello Jeffrey, On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 22:01, Jeffrey Ratcliffe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ocropus".
I'm giving the package a look, and here are my comments: - please remove "XS-DM-Upload-Allowed" field (that should be called "DM-Upload-Allowed", since it's official now), since it's something usually asked by the sponsor after he/she is comfortable with your "autonomous" work. - "Document" in short description should be uncapitalized: think at it like <package> is a <short description> - I don't know if it's importa (but may exist some backoffice tool that cares about uppercases), but I'd uncapitalize the email address in the maintainer field - please explain what OCR is in the long description, so that even un-experienced users may understand what the package does - in long description "OCRopus is development is sponsored by Google" i think it's better "OCRopus development is sponsored by Google", what about? - you don't usually need "usr/bin" in debian/dirs (it's usually created by install steps) - what about include in debian/ocroscript.1 the options listed at http://sites.google.com/site/ocropus/documentation ? consider the situation where a user has no net connection and still wants to use ocroscript. And repeating the long description in the manpage adds no information to the users: please expand it to be usefull and please forward then upstream (so that they can include in the next release). - please add a debian/watch file, "man uscan" for examples - since you claim to be "Standards-Version: 3.8.0" and using a patch system, you have to add a debian/README.source explaining how you patch the upstream source code (for a quilt example, take a look at matplotlib package). - patches have no documentation about what they do; dpatch added a "# DP: " line where you can explain what the patch does (along with other information like the patch author), do you mind add such information (to be clear about the patch scope)? - given that "debian/patches/distclean" added some files to be deleted by upstream distclean target, and "clean: unpatch" this means that the patch is removed before clean target in debian/rules is called, hence invalidating the patch. One solution could be add another target: clean: clean-patched unpatch clean-patched: patch-stamp <commands for the clean target> - It's usually better depends on patch-stamp (or the exported quilt variable, check man quilt) instead of patch, so please fix build-stamp target - you can merge the "rm -f" lines into dh_clean call (they do the same thing) - do you need dh_installexamples and dh_install in binary-arch target ? - please indent the "upstream authors" section in debian/copyright by 4 spaces, and expand (or remove) "... and several others." - License section is indeed the copyright one - please add the correct license section, referring to apache-2.0, adding the apache license boilerplate (as visible in ./ocrocmd/version.h) - since you claim that your packaging is gplv3, and so are the patches you wrote, are you sure that those patches can be applied to apache-2.0 source code? please check. That's the reason we usually suggest to license the packaging under the same license as upstream code. - you completely missed to add information about "External Software" in debian/copyright - please check *every* source file: ./ocrocmd/version.h has a different copyright year, and many others (2006-2008 seems to be the right years); ./colib/nbest.h (and with it, many other) has different copyright holder, and you have to list them in the debian/copyright file; ext/lua/lua.h (and all the related files) has different copyright holder and license: please add them too and check the license is compatible with apache-2.0. I can continue with many other files: please check the whole upstream tarball, *every* files, (I exec, from the root level, "find . -type f -exec less {} \;") and report all the copyright and license information differing from the "main" ones and whether they are compatible each other. - lintian reports some warning: $ lintian -I ../pbuilder/result/ocropus_0.2*changes I: ocropus source: debian-watch-file-is-missing I: ocropus: arch-dep-package-has-big-usr-share 10924kB 78% what about creating a "ocropus-common" package to contain all those architecture independent files? Please reply in case of questions and once you have uploaded an updated package to mentors (no need to bump revision). Kindly, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, Morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
