Hi, thanks for the review, it seems to be thorough and the points you raise are valid. Let me elaborate on a few issues, but note that I did not read the source, but only what Sven wrote. Am Samstag, den 22.08.2015, 15:31 +0200 schrieb Sven Bartscher: > > haskell-lambdabot-core: > The control files contains these Build-Dependencies[-Indep]: > Build-Depends: > [...] > libghc-parsec3-dev (>= 3), > libghc-parsec3-prof (>= 3) | libghc-parsec2-prof (<< 3), > [...] > Build-Depends-Indep: > [...] > libghc-parsec3-doc (>= 3) | libghc-parsec2-doc (<< 3), > This doesn't look right. Why are the alternatives only for -prof and > -doc packages? I would suggest dropping the alternative > build-dependencies on libghc-parsec2-* completely. JFI: These are artifacts from an older version of cabal-debian. > > haskell-misfortune: > This package depends on the -dev packages of monad-loops, regex-base > and reges-pcre but not on the corresponding -prof and -doc packages. > This doesn't seem right, because we always build the -prof and -doc > packages but if there is some reason for this, just tell me. It is right if these dependencies are only used for building an executable, and not the library. Check the *.cabal file! > cabal-debian generated an executable packages with the standard name > haskell-misfortune-utils. This name isn't very nice and we usually > pick a better name for the package. Maybe something like "misfortune" > would suite the package better. The name is indeed bad. You should consider these option and decide wisely: * Do not ship the binary at all, e.g. because it is not of use of its own and lambdabot only needs the library. * Do ship the binary in a separate misfortune package. This is the right thing to do if the program is of use of its own. In this case, all the usual, non-Haskell-specific, package maintenance constraints apply, such as the strong suggestion to write a manpage. * Do ship the binary in libghc-misfortune-dev. This is the right thing to do if it is a tool that is exclusively used when building something that also uses the misfortune library. Probably not the case here. > cabal-debian seems to have placed some of the license texts in the > comment section of the license paragraph. (afaik) This is wrong. Another artifact of an old version of cabal-debian used. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: F0FBF51F JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part