On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 06:49:46 AM Jakub Wilk wrote: > I don't intend to sponsor this package, but here's my review:
I have addressed these problems with Bug#671272: RFS: pyswisseph/1.77.00.0+dfsg-2 [ITP] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=671272 perhaps this new one should be merged with the old one 661664. I don't know how to do that, or if I have the privs. > > * Paul Elliott <pelli...@blackpatchpanel.com>, 2012-02-28, 18:32: > > dget -x > > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pyswisseph/pyswisseph_1. > > 77.00-0-3.dsc > > Please get rid of “<645551 is the bug number of your ITP>” and “source > package automatically created by stdeb” cruft from the changelog. done > > “Vcs-Browser” would be more consistent and more common capitalization > than “Vcs-browser”. done. > > I'd merge all 3 changelog entries into one, and remove of the stuff from > it. There's no point mentioning that e.g. you added copyright file in an > initial release. Of course you did. (But OTOH patches you added might be > worth mentioning.) done in part. > > Remove ${python:Breaks}, nothing generates this substitution variable > anymore. done. > > The package description is very bad. Please see Developer's Reference > §6.2.3. Changed, but I welcome further suggestions. > > The copyright file doesn't say where the upstream sources were obtained. > This is serious violation of Policy §12.5. Whole copyright file redone in dep5 > > I don't understand your lintian override. Why you can't correct the > spelling? Changed the reasons to: # Stanislas Marquis holds the copyright on the email # containing the mispelling. Maintainer can not create # derived work by editing the email python-swisseph-docs binary: spelling-error-in-copyright indended intended #mispelling occurs in upstream's license. #Maintainer is not authorized to change license. python-swisseph-docs binary: spelling-error-in-copyright GNU Public License GNU General Public License > > You can remove “--buildsystem=python_distutils” from debian/rules; dh is > able to detect the build system automatically. done > > Please get rid of the “This file was automatically generated by stdeb” > comment. done > > Do not use patches to remove files. Such patches are huge and are very > likely cause conflicts in the future. Just remove the files in > debian/rules (but see below). I don't delete them anymore; I just don't use them. > > The patches have “Forwarded: yes”, but were they actually forwarded? If > yes, to who? They look Debian-specific to me. replaced yes with the mail Message-Id: of the mail message sent to upstream who has no bug tracker. message is informational, suggests upstream not do anything. > > Assuming that you meant to use DEP-3 for your patch headers, and as far > as I understand the specification, you need an empty line before the > pseudo-header. I believe I have fixed this. > > Please regenerate pydoc/* at build time. done. create new package:python-swisseph-docs for the results. > > The binary package name is wrong. It should be python-swisseph, as per > Python Policy §2.2. fixed. > > Upstream seems to support Python 3, too. Please consider building a > separate python3-swisseph package. done, but no way to test it. > > The is no source for PDFs in the doc/ directory. You have the following > options: > - Ask upstream to include the source in their tarballs. > - Repackage their tarballs. > If you choose the latter option, you could also get rid of unneeded > files that delete-no-longer-need-swe-files patch currently removes. Deleted it instead, creating a dsfg package. If anyone needs these files they are in libswe-dev, a package, that does regenerate these files from source. -- Paul Elliott 1(512)837-1096 pelli...@blackpatchpanel.com PMB 181, 11900 Metric Blvd Suite J http://www.free.blackpatchpanel.com/pme/ Austin TX 78758-3117
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
