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

Re: Raster3D

On Sat, 9 Apr 2005, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:

Andreas, could you see if there is something more to correct, please?

 see no relevance to provide this file.  It mostly contains
   information about installation which is irrelevant for the user
   who has obviosely installed the Debian package.  So I would
   leave out this file.

   Perhaps providing a README.Debian might make sense - but not
   really necessary if there is nothing to tell the user.  You
   might give a short hint to the raster3d-doc package (to tell
   the user that he might find also examples in this package)
   and you also might think whether raster3d-doc should be
   a "Recommends" instead of suggests - but it is your decision
   as how relevant you consider the docs.

/usr/share/doc/raster3d/BUGS :

   it says for instance:

      ==> ImageMagick keeps on changing their option syntax and delegates
          file format.  You may have to tweak the calls to ImageMagick
          utilities in the stereo3d and label3d scripts to match your local
          version of ImageMagick.

   Well, _YOU_ know which version of imagemagick is installed and _YOU_
   are able to either adapt the imagemagick options for Debian users
   or at least give a more precise hint either as a "patch" inside
   the BUGS file or insise README.Debian (because this is the file we
   can expect users to read.

   Moreover from this doc it seems that some parts of raster3d depend
   from imagemagick.  Doesn't this mean we need a Depends or at least
   a Recommends imagemagick?

   Moreover this file provides some information about Irix, AIX and other
   Fortran compilers which is not really necessary for our users.

/usr/share/doc/raster3d/changelog.Debian :

   All my remarks are no real show stoppers for an upload and can be
   fixed in future versions.  But we need a "Closes: #<WNPP-bub-number>"

   You should list the PDF file in addition

   Moreover I have very often seen that the docs inside a xyz-doc package
   are installed into /usr/share/doc/xyz instead of /usr/share/doc/xyz-doc.
   This is a minor remark but I just want you to know that this might
   be interesting and you should perhaps ask or RTFM whether there are
   some best practices.

   Moreover I would do a

       raster3d.html /usr/share/doc/raster3d-doc/html/index.html

   to make immediately clear with what file to start reading.

All in all you did a very good job and I'm more or less nitpicking but
regarding to my experiences about accepting non-free packages it can
not be bad if all minor glitches are solved.

Kind regards and thanks for your work


Reply to: