On 09/05/2011 12:12, Etienne Millon wrote: > On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 11:17:38AM +0200, Matteo F. Vescovi wrote: >>> - debian/rules : >>> - why do you remove RPATHs from executables and binary ? It's stated >>> briefly >>> in NEWS.debian, but the reason is not there. >> >> Without this hack, it doesn't compile and build. I'll add a line about >> it in NEWS.Debian (or README.Debian?). > > Eventually README.Debian as it does not concern end-users.
OK. Added. >>> - as libgtkpod.la is new, no reverse dependencies should depend on its >>> existence. It should be safe not to install it[1]. >> >> OK, gonna remove it. However I asked in IRC channel and they told me how >> to blank the dependency_libs field and keep the rest of the file, for >> compatibility. > > Actually there is no need to be compatible as nothing depends on it > ATM :) OK. Removed. >>> - the "README.debian" is not necessary. >> >> Really? OK. > > I mean the line in debian/changelog : it adds nothing because relevant > information is already in README.debian. I initially misread... and understood the meaning once I've opened the changelog ;-) Now I remember that I added that line because in former package there wasn't that file while I thought it could be important adding my changes there... and that was a way to let people know I also created it. Issue resolved. Thanks. Now I've updated almost all the steps you had an observation on. Thanks a lot for your review. It has been really helpful. Hope to find a sponsor, sooner or later ;-) Cheers. mfv -- Ing. Matteo F. Vescovi -- Il messaggio e' stato analizzato alla ricerca di virus o contenuti pericolosi da MailScanner, ed e' risultato non infetto. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4dc7c090.8000...@revese.it
