Hi, On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 05:40:06PM -0500, Romain Beauxis wrote: > Le jeudi 8 juillet 2010 11:28:09, Nanakos Chrysostomos a écrit : > > Dear mentors, > > Hi ! > > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "archivemount". > > > > * Package name : archivemount > > Version : 0.6.1-1 > > Upstream Author : [Andre Landwehr <[email protected]>] > > * URL : [http://www.cybernoia.de/software/archivemount/] > > * License : [LGPL] > > Section : utils > > > > It builds these binary packages: > > archivemount - mounts an archive for access as a file system. > > > > The package appears to be lintian clean. > > Not here, though it is minor: > N: Processing source package archivemount (version 0.6.1-1) ... > W: archivemount source: timewarp-standards-version (2010-06-24 < 2010-06-28) > N: > N: The source package refers to a Standards-Version that was released after > N: the date of the most recent debian/changelog entry. Perhaps you forgot > N: to update the timestamp in debian/changelog before building the package? > N: > N: Severity: normal, Certainty: certain > N:
Fixed. > N: ---- > N: Processing binary package archivemount (version 0.6.1-1) ... > I: archivemount: description-synopsis-might-not-be-phrased-properly > N: > N: The synopsis (first line in the package "Description:" field, the short > N: description) ends with a full stop "." character. This is not necessary, > N: as the synopsis doesn't need to be a full sentence. It is recommended > N: that a descriptive phrase is used instead. > N: > N: Note also that the synopsis is not part of the rest of the > N: "Description:" field. > N: > N: Refer to Debian Developer's Reference section 6.2.2 (The package > N: synopsis, or short description) for details. > N: > N: Severity: minor, Certainty: possible > N: > N: Removing /tmp/bOng9fFHNZ ... > > Fixed. Lintian v2.4.2 used. > > The upload would fix these bugs: 587029 > > > > My motivation for maintaining this package is: > > It is a very useful tool for mounting archives with the > > use of FUSE and accessing it as a file system. > > Indeed, this looks interesting. Building seems fine and the debian packaging > looks ok. > > Two remarks though: > * Minor: You don't need to list README.Debian in the docs, it is installed > anyway Fixed. > * Major: You got the license version wrong. The licence claimed by the > author > is LGPL version 2 and not 3 as mentioned in the debian/copyright file. Fixed also. > > Also, as a side note, since the build system is pretty standard, I would look > at some tool like cdbs of dh to simplify debian/rules, but that's your call > here :) > > In the next version?? -:) Thanks, Chris. > Romain > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] > Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected] > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
