© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
0e1f616
(Get the code!)
In general, we prefer new packages to go through Debian. But as there's a Feature Freeze looming, that probably couldn't be done in time for precise. So, while I'd still like to see it in Debian, I'm happy to look at uploading it straight to Ubuntu, with the promise that it'll eventually end up in Debian :)
Some review (ok, mostly questions):
* Why are we picking some random snapshot, rather than the 0.4.0 stable release?
* bzr-builder.
* That's a very odd version number for an initial release. Why the epoch? Is that because of upsteram's debs? What verisons are they using?
* What is seeks-experimental?
* A wrap-and-sort wouldmake the Build-Depends a lot prettier and more manageable
* The description ends with a blank line
* The description's bullited list only needs to be indented two spaces.
* The description has lots of trailing whitespace
* It's generally not necessary to talk about being open source in the description. The ubuntu archive is almost entirely open source :)
* wishlist: have a look at DEP5, it's a nice machine-readable format for copyright files.
* NEWS is empty. Do we really want to include it in the binary packages?
* COPYING is redundant, that's what debian/copyright is for. No need to include it in the binary packages.
* Deleting users in maintainer scripts is frowned upon, see http://
* Why are we skipping dh_auto_test?
* Urgh, the init and maintainer scripts mix tabs and spaces.
* Note: I also haven't given them (the scripts) a thorough review...
* And I haven't reviewed the binaries.
For Debian, take ownership of the RFP bug and retitle it to an ITP. Then follow the Mentors process for sponsorship. I'd offer sponsorship, but it's a non-trivial package, so I can't make any guarantees.
http://
http://