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

That and the DEB_SCONS_OPTIONS above it seems to indicate that it does 
not follow Debian Policy ยง4.9.1. 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:


I will do an analysis on copyrights/licenses now - and hope not to find 
anything controversial there....


 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to