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. Ok. > > 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 > LICENSE is > > "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. Thanks, Anton.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature