Re: Bug#694418: ITP: fits -- Java library for the I/O handling of FITS files
Hi,
I've got a question about the debian-science policy and lintian.
If I try to mind the policy
http://debian-science.alioth.debian.org/debian-science-policy.html#idp4869552 ,
the first four lines of my "debian/control" look as follows:
Source: fits
Section: science
Priority: extra
Maintainer: Debian Science Maintainers <debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>
So far, my binary package is called "libfits-java". In that case,
lintian complains about the section chosen for the package:
W: libfits-java: wrong-section-according-to-package-name libfits-java => java
N:
N: This package has a name suggesting that it belongs to a section other
N: than the one it is currently categorized in.
N:
N: Severity: normal, Certainty: possible
N:
N: Check: fields, Type: binary, udeb, source
N:
Apart from the too generic name of my package (see Ole's remark
below), what is considered good practice for naming a scientific
java package?
Am 26.11.2012 17:10, schrieb Olе Streicher:
> Hi Florian,
>
> Florian Rothmaier <frothmai@ari.uni-heidelberg.de> writes:
>> * Package name : fits
>> [...]
>> * License : public-domain
>
> Some short comments:
>
> * I would not name the (source) package "fits" since this is too short
> and misleading (I would expect a generic fits handling package there,
> not a java specific one). Since it is a java package, "fits-java" or
> "libfits-java" (the same as your library package) would IMO fit better.
>
> * Since the original code is under PD, would you consider to put the
> Debian package under a less restrictive license than GPL?
@Ole: Following the recommendation of the debian-legal guys, I put
the Debian package under the CC0.
>
> * I would announce the ITP also in the debian-java mailing list, and
> also ask for review and sponsorship in all three lists (mentors,
> science, java).
>
> Cheers
>
> Ole
>
>
Cheers,
Florian
Reply to: