Hi! First and foremost thank you for thorough review.
On 06/17/2013 05:00 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote: > (I don't intend to sponsor this package. Sorry!) > > * Grzegorz Niewisiewicz <grzeg...@niewisiewicz.pl>, 2013-06-16, 22:30: >> http://mentors.debian.net/package/bats > > Direct link to .dsc for the lazy: > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/bats/bats_0.2.0-1.dsc > > Machine-readable d/copyright file specification reads: "There are many > versions of the MIT license. Please use Expat instead, when it matches." I didn't know that there are many variants of the MIT license. Changed to Expat. > > Lintian emits: > O: bats source: package-needs-versioned-debhelper-build-depends 9 > W: bats source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.9.3 (current is 3.9.4) > > But wait, why did you override > package-needs-versioned-debhelper-build-depends? Lintian is correct > here: your build-dependency on debhelper is insufficient. Fixed. I didn't realize that I should declare a dependency on debhelper whose version is at least the declared compatibility level. I declared a dependency on debhelper (>= 9). > > If Lintian was a bit smarter, it would also emit > hyphen-used-as-minus-sign for this line: > .RI [ -c ] " file" ... Fixed. What about the header? Currently it reads: bats \- Bash Automated Test Suite Do we want a hyphen or a minus here? > > Your README.source reads: "You WILL either need to modify or delete this > file". So please do one of these things (probably the latter). Ops, I totally missed that! > > The .orig.tar uploaded to mentors is not the same as uscan downloads: > files in the former are owned by grn:grn; they are owned by root:root in > the latter. Done. > > Please remove the "Sample debian/rules that uses debhelper..." comment. > It doesn't make sense. Done. > > Please honour DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck. Done. > > I don't see a point of putting obvious things like "Added a watch file" > to a changelog entry for an initial release. (Now if there was already a > version in the archive without d/watch, and the file was added in a new > version, that'd be another story.) Done. > > Why does it need such a new version of coreutils? (This, on the other > hand, might be something worth explaining in the changelog.) This > build-dependency makes the package unbuildable on i386, which is stuck > with an earlier version of coreutils. I changed the dependency to coreutils from stable (>= 8.13-3.3). > > Also, why does it need such a new version of bash? > > Why priority "extra"? I'd use "optional". >From the Debian Policy: optional - (In a sense everything that isn’t required is optional, but that’s not what is meant here.) This is all the software that you might easonably want to install *if you didn’t know what it was and don’t have specialized requirements*. This is a much larger system and includes the X Window System, a full TeX distribution, and many applications. Note that optional packages should not conflict with each other. extra - This contains all packages that conflict with others with required, important, standard or optional priorities, or *are only likely to be useful if you already know what they are or have specialized requirements* (such as packages containing only detached debugging symbols). So I assumed that a testing tools for developers are in the category of specialized requirements. I checked the practice in existing packages and I'm a little bit confused. For example the packages python-nose (test discoverer and runner) and libmysqlclient-dev are optional while python-mox (mock object framework) is extra. What's the rule here? I thought that you don't want to install development tools unless you have specialized (i.e. programming) needs. Regards -- Grzegorz Niewisiewicz -- 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/51c8c961.1070...@niewisiewicz.pl
