Hi Christian, On 24/04/2016 00:02, Christian Kastner wrote: > control: owner -1 ! > I'd be happy to sponsor your package.
Thank you. > On 2016-04-23 21:06, Giulio Paci wrote: >> I am looking for a sponsor for an updated version of my package >> "sequitur-g2p" >> >> You can download the package with git using this command: >> >> git clone git://anonscm.debian.org/collab-maint/sequitur-g2p.git > > First, a general note: more specific commit messages would facilitate > reviewing (at least for me). For example: > > commit c98be9ed397b0ba4be9aa6c82f1ce1be54e06acf > Author: Giulio Paci <giuliop...@gmail.com> > Date: Tue Apr 19 21:56:57 2016 +0200 > > Updated control file. > > What update was that? From the other commits, I can deduce that this was > merely a refreshing of d/control from d/control.in, and the actual > changes -- namely bumping Standards-Version, and updating Vcs-* -- > happened earlier. This was a bit confusing, so being explicit about this > could be helpful. You are perfectly right. I think "Refreshed" is a much better word in this case, so I will use this word in future. > Furthermore, the "better" your commit structure and messages, the more > you get out of them yourself. You seem to be using git-buildpackage, so > using the magic command `gbp dch`, you can have gbp initialize a > debian/changelog entry from your commit history for you. And the better > your commit history, the less polishing you need to do. Already using it, and indeed I need some polishing every time. :-) > On to the specific notes: > * d/copyright: > - Refers twice to the "GNU _Lesser_ General Public License". Seems > to be copy-pasta, as all other references to GPL-2 are correct Fixed. > * d/patches: > - Please consider making the headers DEP3-compliant (although it's > not a "hard" requirement): http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/ Can you point me to what the current headers are missing in order to be DEP3-compliant? Did I miss some mandatory field? > - Patches should be sufficiently self-describing. I can understand > the motivation for 1013, 1014, and 1015 but not the others: > + 1011: Why change multigram size? Did this improve something? > + 1012: Why add SWIG options? How did this affect the build? > * d/changelog: > - Please indicate why Vcs-* fields were changed. Something like: > "Switch to secure URIs in Vcs-* fields" I used exactly these words. :-) > Your package built cleanly and without lintian errors or warnings, so as > soon as you address the above issues, I'd be ready to upload. I just pushed the changes to the repository. Bests, Giulio
