Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 23 Nov 2006 13:57:50 +0200 > Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'm willing to take a look at it tomorrow and If it checks out, I'll > > More work is needed before this package is ready for sponsoring. > > 1. There's a patch in the BTS that you need to include - a translation. > Also, check to see if any of the existing bugs are already fixed or > have obvious fixes. Tag those that are fixed as 'fixed-upstream' (see > later). In particular, #268468 should be looked at and, hopefully, > fixed.
Done and done. > 2. There is one copyright holder missing from debian/copyright. Use > grep Copyright on the src/ directory. Done. > 3. There are commented lines in debian/rules that should be removed This is matter of preference. Has been discussed before and I prefer to keep them for later use. > 4. copyright contains a notice to check other files for other copyright > holders - a reminder to implement [2] - you need to remove that > reminder once you have checked the source more carefully. > +# Please also look if there are files or directories which have a > +# different copyright/license attached and list them here. Done. > 5. debian-upstream.mk appears redundant. Fixed. > 6. a .desktop file would be a big improvement - the current menu entry > in Apps/Text could also be reviewed - most addressbooks go into > Apps/Databases or Apps/Tools. The .desktop file should probably use > Application;PIM;Office > 7. Don't package NEWS - it's redundant. Done. > 8. Update the manpage to explain the absence of the claimed upstream > location. The manpage and AUTHORS also hint at other copyright holders > not specified in debian/copyright. Done and done. > 9. Don't package TODO - it's also redundant. Done. > 10. README is also probably redundant. It contains little information > that isn't already available in the app or in the apt-cache description. Done. > 11. Merge the copyright statements at the bottom of debian/copyright. > "The Debian packaging is (C) 2004-2006, David Moreno Garza > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2007, Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and is > licensed under the GPL, see above." Done. > 12. Provide a download location that can be specified in > debian/copyright to replace the dead upstream. The link can serve as a reference. I plan to put package at alioth in the future, but this should not be an obstacle for upload. > BTW. Why did you remove cdbs? dh_make can create cdbs packaging as > easily as any other. For practical reasons. I have tools for dh-make, which is also more widely in use. cdbs and dh-make havae been discussed before and choice is a personal preference. > > - Upstream vanished > > - No new features will appear > > This is bad news. This makes a comparison between dlume and equivalent > small addressbooks (like gpe-contacts, contacts and gaby or quicklist) > less than favourable. Can't help that. > If there is no upstream, I am less keen to sponsor. I'd strongly > recommend creating a new upstream (somewhere like SourceForge as > this isn't a Debian native package) and seeking help to create a new Is planned. > upstream team - unless you are willing to take on upstream tasks > alone. I am. > > - I'm propbably able to fix C if there ever appears serious bugs. > > As maintainer, you will be responsible for doing so - I can help as > sponsor but it'll be your job to implement the changes and test, hence > seeking help with upstream. You're looking to adopt an orphaned package > that is also dead upstream - that puts a certain burden on you as > prospective Debian maintainer. Not all orphaned packages are also dead > upstream. This is not a problem. Dlume is worth keeping and there are no open bugs after this upload (all fixed; except wishlist). > Right now, the package is not ready for sponsoring. Check now. Thanks for detailed review. dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dlume/dlume_0.2.4-4.dsc Jari -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
