Hi, On Mon, Sep 18, 2006, Marcio Teixeira wrote: > Hi Loïc. Thanks for your interest. Yes, I need sponsor. libiec61883 > depends libraw1394, uploaded recently.
Yes. > Please, wait fews days for I > update libiec61883. Hmm, what are you waiting for? builds? Looks fine now: http://people.debian.org/~igloo/status.php?email=&packages=libraw1394&arches= Perhaps you meant to replace libraw1394-8-dev with libraw1394-dev in your debian/control? > Great. Thank you very much. I'm a newbie and so, I will need your help, > sure. Ok, so first I see you did not start from the Ubuntu packaging or changed it. That's ok, it's your time, but it might save you some time to look there first for the next packages. :) Anyway, the Ubuntu packaging has some issues, so it's fine to rewrite it. You did more mistakes though. ;-) Here are the issues I see with your packaging: (required) 1) Your copyright claims: http://www.linux1394.org/dl/libiec61883-1.0.0.tar.gz this would have to be updated for each release, please only mention the base path, <http://www.linux1394.org/dl/> (required) 2) You need the copyright years at some point. For example: Copyright 2004 Mister Foo Copyright 2005-2006 Mister Bar or simply: Copyright 2004-2006 Mister Foo, Mister Bar, ... Do a recursive grep on the source to get a list of copyright years, and at it at the top of copyright. 3) the current SVN has changes with respect to the upstream tarball, I don't see why these changes are made directly in the source when you use a patch system. Modern packages use a patch system, and I suggest you keep only the debian/ in SVN. The teams I'm in all do this, have a look at svn+ssh://svn.debian.org/svn/pkg-gnome/desktop/unstable or svn+ssh://svn.debian.org/svn/pkg-gstreamer/unstable if you like. This is not required, and I only suggest you make your own opinion. I think it's best to only keep debian/ in SVN, but I know some people do it like you do. This makes it a bit harder for me to review the delta between your package and upstream for example. Also, I see you wrote a get-orig-source target which will relibtoolize the source (run autotools), I don't think it's a good reason to repack the tarball. Tarballs are typically repacked to strip off non-free stuff. I use patches for this instead, search for 70_relibtoolize patches in pkg-gnome for example. Please tell me why you repack the source. 4) Debhelper compatibility level 4. 4 is slightly deprecated, 5 is supposed to be the norm, especially for new packages. But I'm fine with this. 5) Package: libiec61883-0-dev Provides: libiec61883-dev Conflicts: libiec61883-dev I see no reason why you would want to do this in Debian, particularly since the Ubuntu package is named libiec61883-dev, this seems to introduce an incompatibility. Could you explain why you want this name? 6) Please add ${misc:Depends} to your Depends, even if this results in a warning, this is a safer setup. 7) The get-orig-source is awful, it's a shell script wrapped in makefile. Makefile are like shell scripts with the "set -e" flag, so there's no need to use && \ between lines. If you want to embed a long shell script like this one in the future, use a separate file, eg debian/get-orig-source.sh. In this particular case, I don't think you should repack the tarball at all, but if you still want to do so, you might want to rely on "uscan" instead (that's what the watch file is for after all). (required) 8) Don't hardcode the package version, like in DEB_PKG_VERSION := 1.0.0. You can use dpkg-parsechangelog to retrieve the needed information. Grep the debian/rules in pkg-gnome for examples. Please fix the "required" items above and point me to the updated package. You may or may not fix the non-required stuff, but please repond to the questions. Thanks, -- Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
