Re: Raster3D
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Michael Banck wrote:
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.
I think so as well. You might think about three packages
raster3d, raster3d-common (or raster-data according to your preferences
for a name) and raster3d-doc
But I know that ftp-master does not really like "small" doc packages. Once
I claimed that there is no definition of "small", but in the case of raster3d
I would not think that it is worth packaging the docs outside of {data,common}
even if I'm a friend of putting documentation in extra packages.
Moreover I have seen that you have BUGS.gz, README and upstream changelog
in the /usr/share/doc directory of both packages. This is not really
necessary. Either put only copyright and changelog.Debian into each package
or you can even make a symlink to the other doc directory.
Anyway, those are just nitpicks (expect perhaps the first point), the
package looks nice on a first quick glance.
I completely agree with Michael's other points and even if they are
nitpicks - they make the package better.
I guess once you polished the stuff we mentioned I will go for a sponsored
upload.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: