Hi Yavor,
On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 09:36:36PM +0000, Yavor Doganov wrote:
> Author: yavor-guest
> Date: 2009-10-07 21:36:36 +0000 (Wed, 07 Oct 2009)
> New Revision: 4182
> ...
> Log:
> * New upstream release.
> * debian/compat: Set to 7.
> * debian/control (Uploaders): Reluctantly add myself.
> (Build-Depends): Bump debhelper to >= 7. Add imagemagick for the icon
> conversion.
> (Standards-Version): Claim compliance with 3.8.3.
> (Depends): Add ${gnustep:Depends}.
> * debian/patches/10_gcc-4.3-inline.dpatch:
> * debian/patches/25_mipsel-ftbfs.dpatch: Remove; fixed upstream.
> * debian/patches/15_link-properly.dpatch: Update and remove the
> workaround for the GSL linking issue; fixed in binutils
> (http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2009-01/msg00413.html).
> * debian/patches/20_paths.dpatch: Refresh.
> * debian/patches/00list: Update.
> * debian/rules (external): New variable.
> (build-stamp): Convert the icon in XPM format.
> (install): Use dh_prep instead of dh_clean -k. Install the XPM icon.
> (clean-patched): Don't make the `clean' target, `distclean' is
> sufficient. Delete the generated icon.
> * debian/UL.desktop: Bump version, add Icon field.
> * debian/menu: Add icon.
> * debian/watch: Comment out the uversionmangle option, does harm with
> the current state of affairs.
> * debian/copyright: Update copyright years. Mention that the package is
> distributed under GPLv3+.
> * debian/README.source: New file.
many thanks for your extensive work on adun.app. I admit I hesitated to
touch this package because of the lack of knowledge of GNUStep. Your
polishing of the packaging looks quite outright. Again, thanks for this!
I have one question when looking at the upstream tarball which has grown
five times in size and probably one reason is the addition of
ExternalPackages/StepTalk: I see the directory in the source but
neither do I see a sign that it is used in the build ("grep -i steptalk
*.build" is empty) nor do I see Debian's steptalk package in the
(Build-)Depends. Could you clarify the issue of StepTalk? If it is
completely unused code we might consider stripping it from the source
tarball. (I'm a friend of cleaning source tarball from large chunks
of unused data - others don't. So I leave it to your decision.)
I fixed two cosmetical lintian issues. I'm also a bit concerned about
the lintian info:
adun.app: arch-dep-package-has-big-usr-share 4136kB 56%
So we might consider splitting the binary packages in an arch: any and
an arch: all (adun.app-common or something like that) which contains
all the architecture independent stuff.
I also have seen that you added yourself as Uploader. That's perfectly
OK. So if you think the package is ready for upload just go for it.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
