Hi Michael, On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 11:00 +0100, Michael Tautschnig wrote: > Thank you very much for your interest in Debian and I'm happy to welcome a new > contributor! Thank you very much! I appreciate it! :-) > So here's some notes on your package: > > - I think your "Suggests:" should be upgraded to a "Recommends:", because rocaml > will be pretty useless without ruby and ocaml being installed. Good point. I should've paid closer attention to the semantic difference between the two. > - Your package should be Architecture: all, there is nothing platform-specific > in this package. Similarly, the difference between any/all had yet to catch my eye. Thanks! > - As this is a fresh package please consider to follow DEP-5 formatting > guidelines for debian/copyright (http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/) Nice! I'll do so. It seems a shame that dh_make's template `copyright' isn't in a format more amenable to DEP-5. I suppose it's not official policy yet. > - No need to ship GPL and LICENSE files, the information is in debian/copyright > already. An excellent point. > - You refer to rocaml as a binary when you really mean a script. Yes - I think I kept thinking of `binary' as `anything executable,' whereas your distinction is correct. > - debian/README.source: Read the contents of the file and act accordingly :-) I knew there would be _one_ obvious mistake like that ... > - I wonder whether you really need a Makefile; you could probably just do this > via a debian/install and debian/dirs file; but that's a matter of taste. Actually, it's nicer overall to let dpkg handle that for me, as you say. I'll probably rework it to do that before I try again. > - The upstream package ships and example and a test directory. It might be good > to make use of both of them (that is, ship examples with the Debian package > and run tests at build time). Good point. The examples are already shipped, although they're installed through the Makefile currently. IIRC I can just use a debian/*.examples file to do that for me, so consider it done. > - extconf.rb and all the examples and test files lack copyright and license > information. Please pursue upstream to fix this right away, otherwise it > cannot be distributed. Upstream contacted. When I clear this up, I'll update the package on mentors and return here. Thanks very much (again!) for your clear and concise guidepoints. It means a lot to me as someone very new to packaging :-) > Hope this helps, > Michael Cheers, Arlen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part