Re: ODIN

[Andreas Tille <tillea@rki.de>]

On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Thies Jochimsen wrote:

> the perspective of having odin in the official repository is certainly
> tempting. However, I don't have the time myself to maintain such a package.

Having an inofficial package is a good start.

> Can you please share your remarks with me?

Sure.  I just wanted to wait for other potential sponsors and they are
Debian centric in this sense that for an inofficial package they are
non-issues, but have to be fixed for an official package.

  1. It is not sane to incorporate the debian packaging directory
     into the upstream tarball.  In case the packaging has to
     be changed a new upstream tarball would be required or users
     would be confused which debian directory is relevant.  The
     easiest way to cope with that is just to leave it out.

     As a consequence the really unusual Makefile.{am,in} would have
     to vanish from here.

  2. debian/copyright is missing download URL and copyright statement.

  3. debian/changelog has to be a real changelog

  4. debian/control: Current Standards version is 3.7.2

This was only a very quick look on the source tarball.  I expect more
issues once I would have tried to really build the package.

Kind  regards and thanks for your work anyway

          Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de