I don't intend to sponsor this package, but here's my review:
* Carlos Jordão <carlosjor...@gmail.com>, 2013-01-03, 00:06:
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/metaphoneptbr/metaphoneptbr_1.12.36-1.dsc
Lintian reports multitude of issues. For your covenience, I sorted the
emitted tags from most to least severe:
E: metaphoneptbr4pgsql: missing-dependency-on-libc needed by
usr/lib/postgresql/9.1/lib/metaphone_ptbr.so
E: php5-metaphoneptbr: missing-dependency-on-libc needed by
usr/lib/php5/20100525+lfs/metaphoneptbr.so
E: php5-metaphoneptbr: missing-dependency-on-phpapi
W: metaphoneptbr-utils: missing-depends-line
E: metaphoneptbr-utils: copyright-should-refer-to-common-license-file-for-gpl
E: metaphoneptbr4pgsql: copyright-should-refer-to-common-license-file-for-gpl
E: php5-metaphoneptbr: copyright-should-refer-to-common-license-file-for-gpl
W: metaphoneptbr source: native-package-with-dash-version
W: metaphoneptbr-utils: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/metaphone_ptbr
W: metaphoneptbr-utils: hardening-no-fortify-functions usr/bin/metaphone_ptbr
W: metaphoneptbr-utils: hardening-no-relro usr/bin/metaphone_ptbr
W: metaphoneptbr4pgsql: hardening-no-fortify-functions
usr/lib/postgresql/9.1/lib/metaphone_ptbr.so
W: php5-metaphoneptbr: hardening-no-fortify-functions
usr/lib/php5/20100525+lfs/metaphoneptbr.so
W: php5-metaphoneptbr: hardening-no-relro
usr/lib/php5/20100525+lfs/metaphoneptbr.so
W: php5-metaphoneptbr: executable-not-elf-or-script
etc/php5/conf.d/metaphone_ptbr.ini
I: metaphoneptbr-utils: description-possibly-contains-homepage
https://sourceforge.net/projects/metaphoneptbr
I: metaphoneptbr-utils: using-first-person-in-description line 7: me
W: metaphoneptbr source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.9.3 (current is 3.9.4)
P: metaphoneptbr source: duplicate-in-relation-field in source build-depends:
postgresql-server-dev-all, postgresql-server-dev-all
P: metaphoneptbr-utils: no-homepage-field
P: metaphoneptbr4pgsql: no-homepage-field
P: php5-metaphoneptbr: no-homepage-field
The package descriptions are not phrased properly; please consult
Developer's Reference §6.2 for details. You could also ask
debian-l10n-english@ for reviewing them.
License text in machine-readable copyright file should be indented by
exactly one space. (More that one is not syntactically wrong, but it's
likely not what you meant; see Policy §5.6.13 for details.)
The copyright file doesn't seem to be complete. The source contains at
least these copyright notices that haven't been included there:
Copyright 2000, Maurice Aubrey
Copyright 2003, North Carolina State Highway Patrol
What are configure and configure-stamp in your debian/rules for? They
don't seem to do anything useful.
You build(-arch) target don't do anything; you build the code in
binary(-arch) instead. While this works, stuff that doesn't require
(pseudo-)root privileges really belongs in build(-arch).
This:
cd php5 ; phpize5 --clean ; cd ..
should be rewritten as:
cd php5 && phpize5 --clean
(see Policy §4.6; also, you don't need to cd back)
This:
cd postgresql; make clean ; cd ..
should be rewritten as:
$(MAKE) -C postgresql
What is python-dev build-dependecy for? You don't seem to build the
Python extensions...
What are autoconf and autotools-dev build-dependencies for? As far as I
can see, this packages doesn't use autotools...
I'm pretty sure .mynotes and .dput.conf files shouldn't be included in
the tarball. :)
The changelog is formatted in a strange way. It's usual to put blank
lines after each package "title" and before each "trailer"; see e.g. how
coreutils changelog is formatted:
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/c/coreutils/current/changelog.txt
You should not close the RFS bug in the changelog; it's supposed to be
closed by your sponsor.
--
Jakub Wilk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
