On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 07:27:18PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Am Samstag, den 28.11.2009, 10:30 +1100 schrieb Paul Bone:
> > On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:52:05AM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > > Am Freitag, den 27.11.2009, 13:31 +1100 schrieb Paul Bone:
> > > > I've addressed Ben's feedback and re-uploaded the package to mentors.debian.net
> > >
> > > you are a member of the pkg-haskell-team, why don’t you upload your
> > > package to our darcs repositories? This would be easier for us.
> > >
> >
> > I plan too.
>
> I just noticed that you uploaded the package to the repo. Sorry for not
> reacting earlier.
>
> Upon a review of the package, I noticed the following issues:
>
> * The copyright file says that the contens are LGPL, but lacks a
> reference to /usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-2.1.
> * The debian/rule file does not use hlibrary.mk. This would turn this
> into a three-line file. Have a look at the other packages on
> http://darcs.debian.org/pkg-haskell/. You’ll also need to add a
> dependency on cdbs then.
> * You should add the -doc packages to the build-depends as well, as
> only then the generated docs will have correct links.
> * What is the build dependency on m4 for?
> * The Depends:, Recommends: and Suggests: fields are not complete
> enough (e.g. ${shlibs:Depends}). Again, have a look at other packages.
> * There seems to be a consensus for libghc6-*-doc for the doc package
> name for new package.
> * Not sure if the README.Debian is worth it. Most packages are only
> available for ghc.
>
> I’m tagging the package as UNRELEASED, pleas tag it back when you think
> the package is ready for upload. Also, don’t be shy to ask any questions
> about these points.
>
Thanks for the feedback. I'll correct these and tag the package back when I'm
comfortable with it.
Cheers.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature