Re: RFR: devilspie2
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:15:24PM +0200, Andreas Rönnquist wrote:
> (in this case - RFR = Request For Review - I am not sure if its a
> used/correct abbreviation)
Correct.
> Could someone please check out my devilspie2 package?
Yes.
> It is a continuation of the original Devilspie by Ross Burton, but with
> the major difference that the symbolic expressions of the original and
> their iterpreter are replaced by much simpler and easier maintainable
> LUA code.
>
> It is written in C, with a simple makefile as build system (My first try
> at a package using a Makefile, I have used cmake in the past) - and also
> using CDBS.
This kind of comment *really* helps understanding what your package is
about. I would like to see this in every RFR/RFS.
> I could (amongst other stuff) take some hints regarding the short/long
> descriptions.
Both of your descriptions focus on explaining how devilspie2 does
things. A user first looking at your package wants to know what your
package does. Your short description explains that devilspie2 can match
windows, but the use - acting on them - is only implied. Maybe your long
description could give a specific use case? The information about LUA
and the origin of this package are clearly useful, but I would put them
to the end of the description.
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/devilspie2/devilspie2_0.08-1.dsc
debian/docs: I think you shouldn't ship the GPL-3, because you already
correctly reference /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-3 from
debian/copyright.
debian/rules: Maybe you can also clean up the dh_make comments?
Helmut
Reply to: