[Pkg-javascript-devel] Please review (and eventualy upload) jquery-simpletreemenu

[Emilien Klein]

Hi François-Régis,

2014-04-03 23:52 GMT+02:00 François-Régis <frv-debian at miradou.com>:
> Hi Emilien,
>
> Thanks for your review,
>
> Le 03/04/2014 22:46, Emilien Klein a écrit :
>> 2014-04-01 23:08 GMT+02:00 François-Régis <frv-debian at miradou.com>:
>>> I've pushed jquery-simpletreemenu on anonscm [1], could someone have a
>>> look at it and tell me how horrible it is ?
>>
>> - d/copyright:
>>   * inconsistent name of upstream contact (Freytag vs. Freitag).
>> According to github, it's "Simon Freytag"
>
> You're right, done.
>
>>   * Include upstream email address as part of Upstream-Contact (from
>> his website: simon at freytag.org.uk)
>
> Did'nt find it, thank you, done.

Great.
As a side note, regarding the discussion around the copyright file in
general, since the use of that format is optional anyway, I guess this
is indeed more of a best-practice approach (standardized way to find
the upstream maintainer's name and contact details) should someone
need to get in touch with him/her. But that's thus likely also open to
interpretation, so don't take that as word of law.

>
>>   * you have to mention the copyright on the debian/* files (you can
>> use same-as-upstream, but have to list yourself as copyright holder)
>
> See next mail.

(you might already have seen my response to David)

>>   * Upstream-Name is incorrect (likely "Simple Tree Menu")
>
> You're (again) right, my Upstream-Name is wrong. What induce you to
> propose "Simple Tree Menu" ? Would'nt be better to take the github name:
> "Simple-Tree-Menu" ?

Simple Tree Menu is the name that is used at all the places on the
upstream website:
http://www.freytag.org.uk/html/stm/index.html

I suspect the dashes in the github repository name is because you
can't create a repo name containing spaces?


>
>>   * Where did you get the year 2010 as start of copyright? The git
>> repo starts in 2012 with a mention of a previous manual zip file.
>
> I've found it by searching the original source and I should have kept
> the link but I did'nt and can't find the source anymore... I drop 2010
> (It's a pity as I'm sure it was the first release... ).

By all means leave it in. I was just wondering why 2010, and not any other date.
If the software stated being developed in 2010, better to leave that in indeed.

>
>> - d/upstream-changelog: the file ends with "Version 1.5.0: Moved to
>> github, effectively ending this changelog; changes will now just be
>> the [git log]"
>> Do you plan to update it with the actual git log? Otherwise I'm not
>> sure this file brings much benefit in including in the Debian package,
>> as it will only be a forever outdated changelog.
>
> I've just added this file to have sort of history before github, it's
> not intended to be updated as upstream shows they will not maintain
> further changelog.

I assume (might be wrong) that the benefit of having a changelog file
included in the Debian package is for Debian users to be able to
review what changed in the e.g. latest version. I assume there is only
very limited advantage in what changed 2 years before the package was
even included in the Debian archive?

> Thanks Emilien, it's always a pleasure to read youre reviews.

I'm still pretty new to reviewing, but I guess it's as good as any
other way to contribute to making Debian the best possible ;)

   +Emilien