On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 11:15:45AM +0100, Alberto Luaces wrote: > Nicholas D Steeves writes: > > [...] > > > > Thanks for the tips!
You're welcome!
> > debian/copyright:
[...]
>
> I went the route of adding the email address, but of course it can be
> changed at any time.
Looks good.
> > debian/gbp.conf:
[...]
> Ok, I pushed a "upstream" branch and all of its tags, so gbp should not
> choke this time.
Looks good.
> > debian/watch:
[...]
> I think I managed to get one working, from reading other packages and
> the uscan manpage.
Looks good. For future reference, you can test a watch file with:
uscan -v --no-download
This package also has some lint that needs to be taken care of. It's
a good idea to run lintian after building a package, and you should
configure whatever builder you're using to do this automatically.
W: company-irony source: out-of-date-standards-version 4.1.1 (current is 4.1.3)
I: company-irony source: testsuite-autopkgtest-missing
W: elpa-company-irony: new-package-should-close-itp-bug
I: elpa-company-irony: extended-description-is-probably-too-short
Out-of-date-standards-version is a Warning that should be addressed,
and additionally must be addressed for NEW packages. Periodically,
when you update your package you'll see this pop up. Once you've done
the work to make sure a package is policy-compliant you can use the
following checklist to keep it up to date:
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/upgrading-checklist.txt
On this topic, in the next phase of review I'll check if your package
installs and functions properly, and also if it is compliant with
Policy 4.1.3.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/
New-package-should-close-itp-bug Warning will need to be addressed
before someone will sponsor the upload.
Extended-description-is-probably-too-short is Informational, but in
this case I think it should be addressed. At a minimum add "for the
C, C++ and Objective-C languages" (README.md notes this), and please
also read these sections 3.4, 3.4.1, and 3.4.2. It's worth developing
a strong habit towards this as early as possible, and I will confess
that I need to work on better descriptions for some of my packages. ;-)
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#the-description-of-a-package
Have fun!
Nicholas
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
