On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. ;-) ).
OK. > > 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. lintian will complain if the name is not liblunar-1-0, this name is come from "objdump -p /usr/lib/liblunar-1.so.0.0.0 | grep SONAME" > > - Packages containing functionality for use in a script language should > be named lib<package>-<language>, in this case liblunar-python instead > of python-lunar. no, debian python policy 2.2 said the package name should be python-foo, and python-lunar really provide a lunar module. > > - 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. :-) OK. an updated version is uploaded to mentors.debian.net. remove DM-Upload-Allowed and update copyright information, please check it. you can download the new version by: dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/liblunar/liblunar_0.2.6-1.dsc -- Best Regards, LI Daobing -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
