review: qstardict (Re: Advocate needs)

2007-09-03 Thread Justin Pryzby
On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 07:12:18PM +0400, Alexander Rodin wrote:
 В Пнд, 03/09/2007 в 10:19 -0400, Justin Pryzby пишет:
  On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 06:15:24PM +0400, Alexander Rodin wrote:
   Hi all!
   I have develop program (http://qstardict.ylsoftware.com) and maintain
   Debian package for them. Now I want to put them to Debian. Can anyone to
   be my advocate?
  Hi Alexander,
  
  Where are the debian sources?
  
 Hi, Justin!
 There is a Debian sources:
 http://qstardict.ylsoftware.com/files/qstardict-0.07-debian-sources.tar.bz2 .
 But this have some problem: written by me manpage qstardict.1 don't
 installs...
Some comments.

You're the upstream author; why don't you include the manpage upstream
instead of in the .diff.gz?  I realize that manpages for graphical
programs are difficult to write well.  Does your program accept
keystrokes?  Does it have any other help file?

Is debian/dirs really necessary?  It's probably best if this is
handled by upstream install scripts, and debian foo used only as a
fallback.

Your changelog has two Initial release entries.  The second should
(by convention) instead read New upstream release..  Since you're
the upstream author you can include sub-bullets with the major changes
for that release.

The copyright file should specify under which versions of the GPL the
content is licensed and ideally include the full GPL header (but not
the full GPL).

doc-base isn't for listing manpage; see dh_installman for how to fix
that.

Section: universe/devel doesn't make sense for Debian.

At least the manpage and rules files should probably have some of
their comments removed.  Perhaps not all of them though.  The only
advantage to not removing comments is to easily be able to diff to new
templates...

+install: build

+binary-arch: build install

I really wish the redundant dependancy on build was either not
specified in the template or that someone would explain to me what
purpose it serves.  But I already reported it as bug #358722 and
apparently knowbody nos.

Justin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: review: qstardict (Re: Advocate needs)

2007-09-03 Thread Alexander Rodin
Thank you!

 You're the upstream author; why don't you include the manpage upstream
 instead of in the .diff.gz?  I realize that manpages for graphical
 programs are difficult to write well.  Does your program accept
 keystrokes?  Does it have any other help file?
I don't include manpage into program sources because it doesn't accept
any command line options.

 Is debian/dirs really necessary?  It's probably best if this is
 handled by upstream install scripts, and debian foo used only as a
 fallback.
 
 Your changelog has two Initial release entries.  The second should
 (by convention) instead read New upstream release..  Since you're
 the upstream author you can include sub-bullets with the major changes
 for that release.
 
 The copyright file should specify under which versions of the GPL the
 content is licensed and ideally include the full GPL header (but not
 the full GPL).
 
 doc-base isn't for listing manpage; see dh_installman for how to fix
 that.
 
 Section: universe/devel doesn't make sense for Debian.
 
 At least the manpage and rules files should probably have some of
 their comments removed.  Perhaps not all of them though.  The only
 advantage to not removing comments is to easily be able to diff to new
 templates...
 
 +install: build
 
 +binary-arch: build install
 
 I really wish the redundant dependancy on build was either not
 specified in the template or that someone would explain to me what
 purpose it serves.  But I already reported it as bug #358722 and
 apparently knowbody nos.
I have fix all this bugs and check package using lintian.
-- 
Alexander Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]