Re: Raster3D

[Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org>]

On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 06:46:04PM -0300, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
> Could someone verify if what I did is OK? It's the first multiple-binary 
> package that I make!

- Don't make raster3d depend on raster3d-doc, a suggests: or at most
  recommends: is enough. Oh, does raster3d-doc contain data files
  necessary for running raster3d? In that case, you should probably
  rename it to raster3d-common or raster3d-data to avoid confusion.

- You could split up the patches you are doing to the upstream source
  into logical pieces and keep them under debian/patches via a
  patch-system like dpatch, quilt or CDBS' simple-patchsys. That makes
  (i) source management easier as you might forget which change belongs
  to which patch or for which reason (or a new maintainer might not know
  at all) and (ii) makes it easier to keep the Debian package in a
  revision control system like CVS, arch or subversion, as the Debian
  diff would only touch files under debian/ and thus only this directory
  would need to be in revision control.

- The more-or-less canonical staging directory for installing stuff to
  be distributed into several binary packages in debian/tmp, so you
  could just use that (and CDBS would use it anyway).

- You could perhaps put the manpages into debian/raster3d.manpages.

Anyway, those are just nitpicks (expect perhaps the first point), the
package looks nice on a first quick glance.

> BTW, I am learning a lot here... I have learnt CDBS, 

Your raster3d package doesn't appear to use CDBS :)


cheers,

Michael

-- 
Michael Banck
Debian Developer
mbanck@debian.org
http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html