Hi again,
Now to reply to your questions:
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006, Marcio Teixeira wrote:
> > Perhaps you meant to replace libraw1394-8-dev with libraw1394-dev in
> > your debian/control?
> Yes. Done.
Actually, there were still the Depends to update.
> > Anyway, the Ubuntu packaging has some issues, so it's fine to rewrite
> > it. You did more mistakes though. ;-)
> Ok.
The second pass is way better. I compared the Ubuntu packaging byte by
byte with yours for compatibility reasons, and you have nicer
descriptions, and packaging now.
> > Do a recursive grep on the source to get a list of copyright years, and
> > at it at the top of copyright.
> Done.
I Noticed a small problem with the version of the LGPL which I
addressed.
> A doubt: I did not find this condition into Debian Policy. Is required
> by Debian Policy or your Policy :) ?
It's a requirement of US copyright laws IIRC, and it's a thing that the
Debian ftpmasters check, but it's not very strict. It's best to have
it.
> > This makes it a bit harder for me to review the delta between your
> > package and upstream for example.
> Your approach is more elegant, I know. But I feel me more comfortable
> so. In future, maybe I change.
This seems fixed now.
> You are right. I'm working in new upstream source release, without
> repack it. Can you say me where is 70_relibtoolize patches?
If you checkout
svn+ssh://svn.debian.org/svn/pkg-gnome/desktop/unstable, you should
see:
bee% find . -iname \*relibtoolize\*
./gedit/debian/patches/70_relibtoolize.patch
./at-spi/debian/patches/70_relibtoolize.patch
./libart-lgpl/debian/patches/001_relibtoolize.patch
etc.
My procedure is at:
<http://people.dooz.org/~lool/debian/relibtoolize>
> > 4) Debhelper compatibility level 4. 4 is slightly deprecated, 5 is
> > supposed to be the norm, especially for new packages. But I'm fine
> > with this.
> Ok. updated to Level 5
You need to build-dep on debhelper >= 5 to have it though.
> > 5) Package: libiec61883-0-dev
> > Provides: libiec61883-dev
> > Conflicts: libiec61883-dev
> > I see no reason why you would want to do this in Debian, particularly
> > since the Ubuntu package is named libiec61883-dev, this seems to
> > introduce an incompatibility. Could you explain why you want this
> > name?
> Looks like more safe. See it:
> http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html#id271662
> What do you think about?
I changed it to be libiec61883-dev. I think it's ok to use
libiec61883-dev for the first version of the API, but I didn't have the
time to think too long about it and I wanted to retain compatibility
wiht Ubuntu.
We can switch to this scheme with the next API change.
> I'm working in new upstream source release without repack it. When OK,
> I say you.
It was nicely packaged, really.
(Except I would remove the comment from the watch file :-P)
Bye,
--
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
