Bastian Blywis wrote: > Dear mentors, > > unfortunately I got no replies to my RFS so I am trying again and give > some additional information as motivation. Sponsoring the uthash package > should be hassle-free because: > (…)
Hi Bastian, Is this the package: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/u/uthash/uthash_1.9.3-1.dsc ? If it is that package, I have some questions (un-ordered, written as things went under my radar): 1) Why is the README file modified directly ? You should use a patch system (quilt or dpatch) for this purpose lintian: uthash source: direct-changes-in-diff-but-no-patch-system README 2) Is there a reason you are choosing source format 1.0 ? (I'm not insisting on changing to 3.0, but no reason is mentionned in the debian/changelog.) 3) Have the intermediate upstream versions been uploaded somewhere ? Your debian/changelog mentions several versions targetted to "unstable", but I can't see those have been uploaded to the Debian archive. Usually (and I will insist on that), each entry in debian/changelog corresponds to one upload to the Debian archive. 4) the bashism you mention is _very_ easily fixed by s,/bin/sh,/bin/bash, (possibly using the patch system you need to start using to fix 1) ) I don't see a reason not to fix it: it is shipped in the examples of your package and will fail when run by the user. 5) you did several un-documented changes to your package: you changed your e-mail address, you bumped the Standards-Version, you updated the description, you converted the package from 3.0 (quilt) to 1.0 (eh, see 2) above), you dropped the manpage, … All those changes _have_ to be documented in the debian/changelog file. If you fix 1), 3), 4) and 5) and explain 2) to me, I would be happy to sponsor this package for you. Cheers, OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
