Hi. On Sep 02 2010, Williams Orellana wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "compactheader".
A quick follow up to comment on your package: * Please, package version 1.2.4. * Are you sure that the license is MPL-1.1+ and not the tri-license? * Your packaging is under the GPL-3+ and this will cause any changes that you make to not be able to be pushed upstream (say that you produce a patch). Please, consider always having the packaging in the same terms as the upstream software, even if you would prefer another license. * The short description should start with a lowercase letter. * Your watch file doesn't seem to work: ,---- | rbr...@chagas:/tmp/compactheader-1.2.3$ uscan --report-status | uscan warning: In debian/watch, | no matching hrefs for watch line | https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/downloads/file/92157/xpi/compactheader\-([\d\.]*)\-tb\.xpi debian xpi-repack | rbr...@chagas:/tmp/compactheader-1.2.3$ `---- It took me some time to figure out the better solution to use with mozilla addons. Just look into ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/addons/13564/ Be careful to regard the betas as lower than the final releases. Something like mangling the upstream version with s/beta/~beta/ works. * A more philosophical question is that of using xpi-repack to pack an extension: that simply seems to me like packaging the binary product of a program and not using the source code. I did this with the packages that I mentioned on my earlier e-mail, but I still think that this is wrong. Regards, -- Rogério Brito : rbr...@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 4096R/BCFCAAAA http://rb.doesntexist.org : Packages for LaTeX : algorithms.berlios.de DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
