I have used the version string 0.1.0. I'm sure this is incorrect, let me know what you would like instead.
I've also not made your package dependant on simple-test because the tests themselves won't be bundled in the package. I don't think that will cause any issues, unless you rely on the test library for other things.
The package string is fine. I trend not get hung up about version numbers.
As for simple-test, what I really would like is if as part of the install process those tests could be run. That's what they are there for - so users know that this does something reasonable on their computers.
And that's why your comment about you don't use so you don't know how to test is funny to me. You don't have to know how to test, I do (to some extent) and that's therefore baked in.
But that said, I'll try to get to your packaging suggestion and other changes later.
I have no doubt the test suite would run just fine. What I wanted to test was whether the packaging and automated loading worked :)
No other package that I know of includes a test-suite which is run as a condition for installing the package. Instead all fingers are crossed to make sure the package maintainers do not push unusable builds to the master branch from which the package is built (once an hour!).
The marmelade package archive works differently, where you instead opt to release versions manually which you know to be stable. The important thing is to get this thing packaged. Let me know if you want to target marmelade instead. If not running the tests prior to installation is a blocker, I'm sure there's a way to trick emacs into doing that.
The melpa site says that 'The package name should match the name of the feature provided'. I don't think emacs-dbgr is ever provided. Due to your provide-me macro it's impossible to just grep to see if that's the case.