On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 01:16:03 (CEST), Roman Haefeli wrote: > Hi all > > I checked in my first package. I tried to follow - where possible - very > closely to pd-motex, which has been already uploaded. > I would be glad if someone could have a look at it. > > FYI: It is using what I believe is called short-form dh.
indeed, it is. I've taken a quick look at the package, it's a really small package and rather easy to review. Packagingwise, I think it is fine, but I'm umcomfortable with the two patches. First, please use the patch metadata as described in http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/. But as for the actual patches, I'm rather uncomfortable with them. The add-license patch adds the complete text of the GPL. I'm not sure how the ftpteam thinks about it, but to me it feels very strange. Is upstream aware of the problem, can't they just reissue the tarball with the complete license text? Moreover, quoting the part "How to Apply These Term to Your New Programs" is usually also helpful. I'd be more comfortable if the GPL text was just included in debian/, read, as non-patch, but still, I really think this file should be part of the orig.tar.gz. So another approach would be to repackage the tarball to just include the COPYING file. While we are at it, we could also use the new Makefile and get rid of the other patch. what do you think? -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
