Basil Shubin wrote: > I am searching for a sponsor for the following: > > * Package name : arCHMage > Version : 0.0.6 > Upstream Author : Eugeny Korekin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * URL : http://archmage.sf.net > * License : GPL > Description : CHM(Compiled HTML) Decompressor > > arCHMage is an extensible reader and decompiler for files in the CHM > format. This is the format used by Microsoft HTML Help, and is also > known as Compiled HTML. arCHMage is based on chmlib by Jed Wing. > > Debian package and source package: > http://bashu.solarnet.ru/debian/packages/archmage/archmage_0.0.6-3.diff.gz > http://bashu.solarnet.ru/debian/packages/archmage/archmage_0.0.6-3.dsc > http://bashu.solarnet.ru/debian/packages/archmage/archmage_0.0.6.orig.tar.gz > > Please review this package. Do you have comments, suggestions, > critics?
Firstly, I note that the upstream archmage tarball includes an old (GFDLed) version of chmspec. Note that including non-free material in the orig.tar.gz may be an RC bug for etch (the next debian release): http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2005/06/msg00242.html I'm the main upstream author of chmspec, which has been since relicenced under the GPL. I recommend that you remove chmspec from the orig.tar.gz and replace it with links to the upstream homepages: http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/chmspec http://www.nongnu.org/chmspec/ http://www.nongnu.org/chmspec/latest/ It also contains a copy of Matthew Russotto's CHM container format spec, which is also non-free (not modifiable). Please do the same for it: http://www.speakeasy.org/~russotto/chm/chmformat.html I suggest you push these changes upstream too. Comments about your packaging/etc: 1. Where is your ITP bug? 2. It contains a copy of chmlib - you probably want to adapt archmage to build-depend on the chmlib-dev and depend on chmlib. I think I saw something about this kind of thing in the release policy or something. 3. lintian -i gives the following warning: W: archmage: description-synopsis-might-not-be-phrased-properly N: N: The synopsis (first line in the package "Description:" field, the N: short description) ends with a full stop "." character. This is not N: necessary, as the synopsis doesn't need to be a full sentence. It is N: recommended that a descriptive phrase is used instead. N: N: Note also that the synopsis is not part of the rest of the N: "Description:" field. N: N: Refer to Policy Manual, section 3.4.1 for details. N 4. Remove README.Debian - it is effectively empty. 5. Remove commented lines in debian/rules. You may also want to use cdbs instead for the python stuff. 6. Why is the default fs_encoding set to koi8-r - utf-8 will suite more users I would think. 7. You should probably use gcc rather than any specific version of gcc, since it will fail to build when gcc-4.0 becomes the default and no-one has gcc-3.3 installed by default. 8. The description in debian/control could use some reformatting - put " ." on its own on a line to create a blank line, or remove the linefeeds between sentences. -- bye, pabs http://pabs.zip.to
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
