On 11-06-11 at 03:07pm, Dan S wrote: > It would be great if others can comment - anyone?
I did a quick look (don't expect much involvement - am involved in too much at the moment already, and have some deadlines in RL too). This looks bad: > # The build system apparently can't handle this > CXXFLAGS = That and the DEB_SCONS_OPTIONS above it seems to indicate that it does not follow Debian Policy §4.9.1. Only a recommendation apparently, but I am uncertain if that only is _how_ to do it (i.e. DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS hinting) while the underlying mechanisms (e.g. ability to build without optimizations or without stripping binaries) is a must. The -doc package should probably suggest the main package. Similarly for the editor plugin packages (suggestions are too weak to cause a "domino effect" so are in my opinion best to declare explicitly). Oh, and why do editor plugins recommend -doc package? Seems they are tools to write code, not closely related to the documentation of the tool, so should perhaps be lowered to a suggestion. And I guess main packages not suggest/recommend -doc package too. What is the most proper build-dependency for jack these days? Here it is "libjack-dev (>= 0.100) | libjack-jackd2-dev", which as I believe is not wrong but seem to recall can be satisfied by a simpler dependency. The clean rule does not fully cleanup. These files was left behind: common/.sconf_temp/ common/.sconsign.dblite common/config.log I will do an analysis on copyrights/licenses now - and hope not to find anything controversial there.... Regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list email@example.com http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers