Hi Hauke,
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Jan Hauke Rahm <j...@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> do me two favors to start with:
> a) don't CC me, I'm obviously subscribed to the list,
> b) get a mail client that knows how to quote mail.
>
> :)
>
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 05:18:21AM -0500, Elías Alejandro wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:30 AM, Jan Hauke Rahm <j...@debian.org> wrote:
> > Actually, I don't see a difference in debian/rules. Are you sure
> you've
> > uploaded the newest version of your package?
> >
> > Yes, I'm sure. It isn't the tiny way of debhelper but I've created
> separately
> > the dirs and install files for jigzo and jigzo-data. Then debian/rules
> > appears just with one dh_install (tag install).
> > Please considers check it once again.
>
> Of course I do, so let's talk about debian/rules.
> I accept your decision to not use dh7 sequence features altough I must
> say, I don't understand why. Anyways,
> a) you export DH_OPTIONS for no reason AFAICS; there is no "magic" in
> the file;
> b) you include the quilt make snippet but you don't make use of it;
> instead you call the make file by yourself (lines 10 and 20); you can
> simply make patch and unpatch dependent targets of build and clean;
> c) it seems you're installing the manpage twice (through the explicit
> call in line 52 and through debian/jigzo.manpages; any reason?
> d) you're missing the dh_prep call which should clean up before the
> build process (that wouldn't have happened with dh7 :-P)
>
> Then, why don't you have ${misc:Depends} for the jigzo package?
>
> dh_install takes care of installing the needed directories. So there is
> no need for debian/jigzo{,-data}.dirs in this case.
>
> README.source should have at least one sentence about why you're
> pointing to another README file. Just tell the user that you're using a
> patch system which is called quilt and that information about its usage
> can be found at the file you're pointing to.
>
> You still have lintian complaining about
> copyright-refers-to-symlink-license usr/share/common-licenses/GPL which
> is easily fixed.
>
> After all, this is a little nit-picking but it's also most probably the
> last mail from me about the status of your package. :) Please, either
> fix the issues or give me reason why you don't. If we get a good working
> base now, it's easy to discuss changes later if you need a sponsor
> again. To be clear: I'm not questioning your ability to maintain this
> package, I just want it to be good :)
Ok, let me check it . Soon news.
PD.
Sorry for don't do your favor letter b. :)
--
Elias Alejandro
