[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Review pkg gmqcc (dependency for Xonotic)

Hi, Devid,

Thank you for your review.

10/22/13 5:38 AM, David Bate wrote:

> 1. I think it would be a good idea to mention in debian/changelog that 
> you apply a patch to the manpage to fix a lintian warning.

Agree. Done.

> 2. I don't think it is necessary for the syntax files to be included 
> with the docs as it this not where the user would expect them to be.  
> We should either put them in the correct locations or ignore them.


> The next two questions I do not know the answer to myself, and so 
> would be grateful if other members of the games team could answer (if 
> not, we ask on -mentors):
> 1. Should debian/copyright be an exact representation of the copyright 
> information contained within the headder of a file, or is the general 
> license given by upstream sufficient?  For example this project's 
> "Copyright (C) 2012, 2013
>     Dale Weiler
>     Wolfgang Bumiller
> Expat..."
> but some of the individual files only contain one author.
> I have seen some packages that have very careful and accurate 
> debian/copyright, is this something one should aim for?

It's really a good question. In additional from me: if see in github
then we can see more contributors to files. Even me :)
Does it matter? Where it does and doesn't?

> 2. I still have an issue with splitting the package.  I know that the 
> package is only 302K, but my problem is that it build-depends on 
> texlive-latex-extra (rather than build-depends-indep).  In this state 
> the latex documentation would be rebuilt for every arch, most 
> importantly this means that texlive-latex-extra also has to be 
> installed.
> This seems like a waste of resources on the autobuilders, shouldn't
> this be avoided?

Ok. I'll done gmqcc-docs today and hope you will review it too soon.

Thank you for advice about git. Yeah, I like git and learning its features.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: