ubuntu-packaging-guide-team team mailing list archive

[Barry Warsaw <barry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Review: Needs Information
s/check it compiles/check that it compiles/

Line 74 "A running programme..." doesn't make sense to me (seems out of place or incomplete).

I personally would like to promote pkgme over `bzr dh-make` as I think the former is a better overall framework for helping people get the packaging basics added.  It's also much simpler, and doesn't ask the user to answer difficult questions.  Can you check to see if pkgme does the right thing for your example, and if so, switch to that?

(The downside is that pkgme itself isn't in the archives, but it can be installed from a PPA.  It's also less mature than dh-make, but that doesn't seem to be too big a negative for UDD, so we might as well be opinionated here too ;).

line 102 doesn't parse for me: +``compat`` tell the ``debhelper`` scripts which build the package what version
103	+to run as.  Ensure it says ``7``.

meta data, or metadata?

How about instead of "Even if it builds the .deb binary package, your packaging will not yet be a work
158	+of perfection, nothing is first time."

"Even if the .deb binary package was built correctly, your package may still have bugs."

Should you also recommend uploading the package to a PPA?  There are a few things that happen on the LP buildds that normally don't happen on a local build, so the PPA is as close to "reality" as you can get without actually uploading to the archive.

-- 
https://code.launchpad.net/~jr/ubuntu-packaging-guide/03-packaging-from-scratch/+merge/68099
Your team Ubuntu Packaging Guide Team is subscribed to branch lp:ubuntu-packaging-guide.