Hi Thomas, On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 10:59:19AM +0100, Thomas Mertes wrote: > Package: sponsorship-requests > Severity: wishlist
It appears that you were trying to open a bug. You didn't send this mail to submit@bugs.d.o, so no bug was created. In order for potential sponsors to easier find you, I suggest that you file one now. > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "seed7" IANADD, so I cannot sponsor your package, but here is my review. > dget -x > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/seed7/seed7_20130203-1.dsc The first and most obvious steps to review a package is to run recent (unstable) version of lintian on it with pedantic and stuff turned on. Indeed lintian has some relevant findings for your package: It emits unversioned-copyright-format-uri and out-of-date-standards-version. The first one tells you that you should be using Format: http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ in debian/copyright if you want to use dep5 correctly. The second one tells you that a new version of the Debian policy has been released. You should have a look at /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.*, and adapt your packages to the changes outlined there. Looking at debian/copyright you have a line "Files: * src/*". Note that the "src/*" is redundant here. Your license paragraph for LGPL-2.1+ appears not to reference the LGPL from base-files. Could you add that indication? Your debian/rules is unfortunately not up to the task. It fails to build from source when you only build architecture dependent packages. Try "dpkg-buildpackage -B" to see for yourself. Were this package uploaded to the archive, it would fail to build on any architecture. I suggest that you use the targets "override_dh_auto_build" instead of "build" and "override_dh_auto_clean" instead of "clean". Then dh will take care of correctly defining the binary-arch and binary-indep targets. You could also drop the "dh_clean" invocation then, because it would no longer be overridden. Maybe you also want to move the "rm prg/s7 prg/s7c" to just mention the files to be cleaned in debian/clean? Furthermore the test suite should be optional. Please implement some logic to avoid running the test suite when "nocheck" is given in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS. Again you can dh can help you here if you use the target "override_dh_auto_test". While you are at it you could also try supporting parallel building. This should be as easy as adding --parallel to the dh command line and replacing "make" invocations with "${MAKE}" invocations in debian/rules. I also noticed that some file still contain significant boilerplate from dh_make. Maybe you could drop that from debian/watch and debian/rules? Also note that you are not currently using the hardening CFLAGS. While this is not required for non-network facing packages, doing so would be a good idea anyway. Have a look at dpkg-buildflags(1) for more information. I was also wondering whether you could split the seed7 binary package, to something smaller. /usr/share/doc/seed7 takes up 7MB which is about 1/3 of the package. Maybe a seed7-doc package is in order here? Also the files in /usr/lib/seed7/lib appear to be ASCII source files that take up 3MB. Are they really architecture dependent? If not, would it be possible to move them to /usr/share and maybe put them into an architecture independent seed7-lib package? The seed7-lib package really is a matter of taste, but the -doc package saves that much, that you should be doing it. I saw that you already use lint to check the C files. Nevertheless the tool cppcheck has some of its own findings, most of which are boring, but there is an occasional correct finding such as this one: [src/arrlib.c:1084]: (error) Common realloc mistake: 'arr1' nulled but not freed upon failure Maybe you can check and fix them? Finally I was wondering about your Depends line in debian/control. You depend on gcc, which suggests that s7 would be invoking gcc. However you do not depend on libc6-dev, which means that you cannot build against libc6. Is this really correct? Helmut
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
