On 2011-12-19 19:58, Guillaume Mazoyer wrote: > Sorry for this late reply. >
I guess that just made two of us... T_T - Next time feel free to nag me within a week or so. Assuming you are still interested in this package, ... > On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 10:43:51AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote: >> Hi, >> >> A couple of lintian warnings worth considering to fix: >> >> N: Processing binary package slashtime (version 0.5.13-1, arch all) ... >> [...] >> W: slashtime: old-fsf-address-in-copyright-file >> E: slashtime: description-starts-with-package-name Looks fixed (based on the diffs) >> I: slashtime: description-synopsis-might-not-be-phrased-properly Will still be triggered (synopsis ends with a ".") >> W: slashtime: missing-classpath libjava-gnome-java Looks fixed, but you did not have to use a patch (jh_manifest could have done it). I do not care about which method you use, as long as you use the method you prefer to most. >> W: slashtime: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/slashtime Looks fixed as well. > I hope I have fixed some warnings, errors etc... My lintian did not > output all these lines + debexpo tells me that my package is lintian > clean. > >> The run script (usr/bin/slashtime) is broken - I don't get the "cd /usr" > It is used so the application can locate icons. > Upstream contains a 'share/pixmaps' directory so the 'cd /usr' is used > so the application can locate icons in '/usr/share/pixmaps'. > Okay, this is something I would like to see documented (preferably in the script just above the cd /usr). >> part and "exec /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-openjdk-amd64/jre/bin/java" will >> definitely not work for an arch:all package. Furthermore I believe "$@" >> is better than $* when it comes to arguments with spaces and such (note >> the quotes on the first). > I have made a patch for that and tell the upstream author that he should > fix that upstream :) > Thanks >> You may or may not be missing a short-name for the first "files" >> paragraph in d/copyright. I don't remember my DEP-5 here, but you have >> one for the second paragraph, so I assumed you forgot it for the first one. > As far as I know the copyright file is ok and this syntax is correct > according to http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5 > I think I wanted to say 'you may be missing a short-name for the license field in the first "files" paragraph.'. But obviously I do not remember now. > I've re-uploaded the package on debexpo and also commited the new > revision of the file in the pkg-java team SVN. > > Thank you for reviewing my package. > > -- > Guillaueme Mazoyer ~Niels -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f7aed31.8080...@thykier.net
