Re: RFS: archivemount (new package, 2nd try)
Le jeudi 8 juillet 2010 11:28:09, Nanakos Chrysostomos a écrit :
> Dear mentors,
Hi !
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "archivemount".
>
> * Package name : archivemount
> Version : 0.6.1-1
> Upstream Author : [Andre Landwehr <andrel@cybernoia.de>]
> * URL : [http://www.cybernoia.de/software/archivemount/]
> * License : [LGPL]
> Section : utils
>
> It builds these binary packages:
> archivemount - mounts an archive for access as a file system.
>
> The package appears to be lintian clean.
Not here, though it is minor:
N: Processing source package archivemount (version 0.6.1-1) ...
W: archivemount source: timewarp-standards-version (2010-06-24 < 2010-06-28)
N:
N: The source package refers to a Standards-Version that was released after
N: the date of the most recent debian/changelog entry. Perhaps you forgot
N: to update the timestamp in debian/changelog before building the package?
N:
N: Severity: normal, Certainty: certain
N:
N: ----
N: Processing binary package archivemount (version 0.6.1-1) ...
I: archivemount: description-synopsis-might-not-be-phrased-properly
N:
N: The synopsis (first line in the package "Description:" field, the short
N: description) ends with a full stop "." character. This is not necessary,
N: as the synopsis doesn't need to be a full sentence. It is recommended
N: that a descriptive phrase is used instead.
N:
N: Note also that the synopsis is not part of the rest of the
N: "Description:" field.
N:
N: Refer to Debian Developer's Reference section 6.2.2 (The package
N: synopsis, or short description) for details.
N:
N: Severity: minor, Certainty: possible
N:
N: Removing /tmp/bOng9fFHNZ ...
> The upload would fix these bugs: 587029
>
> My motivation for maintaining this package is:
> It is a very useful tool for mounting archives with the
> use of FUSE and accessing it as a file system.
Indeed, this looks interesting. Building seems fine and the debian packaging
looks ok.
Two remarks though:
* Minor: You don't need to list README.Debian in the docs, it is installed
anyway
* Major: You got the license version wrong. The licence claimed by the author
is LGPL version 2 and not 3 as mentioned in the debian/copyright file.
Also, as a side note, since the build system is pretty standard, I would look
at some tool like cdbs of dh to simplify debian/rules, but that's your call
here :)
Romain
Reply to: