Jakub Wilk <jw...@debian.org> writes: > (I don't intend to sponsor this package.)
Thank you for being clear. > Your debian/rules is odd. The "build-arch" target calls "dh > build-arch", so it's effectively no-op. However, the "binary-arch" > target depends on "install", which calls "dh install", which > builds&install almost everything. Shouldn't both "build-arch" and > "binary-arch" be no-ops? The intent is to allow ‘dh_python2’ to do whatever it needs to modify those rules. You're right that, for this package, the ‘*-arch’ targets should do nothing. I will make that change. > Upstream provides tests, please consider running them at build time. Noted, thank you. > > + Update copyright information. > > Your copyright file says "2009-2011 Joshua Bronson", but I don't see > any such copyright statement in the upstream tarball. I am going from activity in the project's VCS. How best to represent and verify that in the ‘debian/copyright’ file? > License paragraphs of your copyright file are formatted in an unusual > way. Only lines containing a full stop indented by exactly one space > denote blank lines. A full stop indented by more than one space (like > in your case) means a verbatim dot. Hmm, it is more readable indented four columns; but you're right that the format in policy applies different meanings to different indentation levels. I will change the field as you suggest. > The package FTBFS if built twice in a row: That didn't happen for me with a ‘pbuilder --build --twice’, which I run specifically to find problems like this. Any idea why the results would be different? -- \ “My house is on the median strip of a highway. You don't really | `\ notice, except I have to leave the driveway doing 60 MPH.” | _o__) —Steven Wright | Ben Finney <b...@benfinney.id.au> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
