Comment 8 for bug 620384

Thanks a lot for your review. Valuable comments since I'm not very experienced with packaging and re-used the sources that former maintainers created.

>* It's not necessary to depend on python << 3. python3 is a separate stack.
Ok.

>* There is a newer standards-version 3.9.1
Ok (I've prepared the package on Lucid).

>* You should probably remove the dh-make comments from the top of debian/rules (even lintian complains about them)
Ok.

>* Is all the UbuntuVersion detection really necessary? This package is for maverick.
I use this set of debian files for building PPA packages for several distributions, so it's convenient. But I could remove it for this specific build in case it'd be prefered.

>* The install files could probably be a lot simpler with more wildcards, but the version you have obviously works (as long as you remember to add new files to it)
Yes, I know but I didn't wanted to modify them before a (final) release.

>* It's not necessary to update-icon-cache for hicolor, it uses a dpkg trigger
Ok.

>* You shouldn't need to call compileall or clean up .pyc files, python-support has support for private modules
We don't use python-support. I've played around with it but didn't succeed. Line 'dh_pysupport' is commented. I've investigated the thing and pyc-files are not created when using python-setuptools (AFAIK). More precise, they are created within the build tree but not copied (since not specified in install files) into the package. Should I add the according pyc files to the install files?

>* Deleting files from users home directories in postrm is bad.
Agree. However, we're writing configuration files into XDG directories (here ~/.config/sbackup). Should we really leave them when the package is purged?

What next? Should I incorporate your suggestions and attach an updated tarball and dsc file?