Hi, On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 10:31:40PM +0800, LI Daobing wrote: > lunar-applet is chinese calendar applet for gnome environment. it's > version is 2.0-1 in this upload(in sid it's 1.8) > > in lunar-applet 2.0, the library part is separated to liblunar by upstream.
I'll look at lunar-applet after the library is through new, otherwise it becomes uninstallable until the library gets in the archive. > PS. I have set DM-Upload-Allowed in these two packages. I don't think this is a good idea, for two reasons: - You're not a DM, so it's removing a safety check without any current need. That means that when/if you would become a DM, this check would be skipped, possibly unnoticed. It's better if this would be done explicitly when there is an actual intention of uploading this package as a DM (so after you are a DM at least). - This flag should IMO only be added when the uploader has shown that he or she can maintain this package well. This means that the sponsor must have done a few uploads of this package for this maintainer already. (Only when using the DM status as a workaround for the slow account creation, can this be skipped, IMO, but you're not at that stage yet. ;-) ). Some comments about the package itself: - The library version is complex. This is probably upstream's choice, in which case it's fine. Libraries normally have a [base]-[version] and [base]-dev package. That means the base name of this library is liblunar-1. Gtk+ uses a similar naming, but personally I don't think it's needed to do this until version 2 is needed *and* it is such a big change that porting old applications is not reasonable, *and* there are enough old applications to keep providing the old version as a -dev package next to the new version. Most libraries don't ever get in that state, so they don't need such a complex version. - Packages containing functionality for use in a script language should be named lib<package>-<language>, in this case liblunar-python instead of python-lunar. - In the copyright file you use (C). This is said to be legally meaningless, you should use the complete word "Copyright" instead (which means it's on some lines twice). Also, it needs a time indication (years are good enough). You have that for your packaging, but not for the main program. Summary: for every copyright holder, you need a line of they type "Copyright [year] [name] [email]". The email can be omitted. For every piece of code you also need a license, but you have that already. :-) Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
