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

Re: Subject: RFS: c++-annotations

On Friday 08 September 2006 00:05, tony mancill wrote:
> Hello George,


> I'm looking at this package.  Here are a couple of comments so far:

Thanks for looking at the package and your comments.

> debian/control:
> * The package Architecture should be "all" instead of "any" - this will
> prevent the (identical) package from being built for every Debian
> architecture.

Actually yes, the resulting binary package is architecture independent. 

> * You can remove ${shlibs:Depends} from Depends:


> * What is the reason for declaring a dependency on lynx | www-browser?
> There are other document formats in the package (therefore, it is useful
> without having a browser installed).

True. The dependency on lynx | www-browser is removed now. I'm uncertain 
whether any document readers should be pointed out in Suggests:. However I 
left bisonc++ which is not in the archive yet, but that should not be an 
issue, as Suggests: is not a strong dependency. The only inconsistency I can 
think of is the package webpage listling `not in archive yet' or something 

> * You may want to add  Homepage: to the send of the Description:

Added one-leading-space Homepage:, to keep consistency with the rest of the 
description of the package webpage.

> * You Build-Depend on gs | gs-gpl, but gs depends on gs-gpl, so I think you
> can safely choose one or the other.

You are correct. I chose gs-gpl, since it won't pull gs, i.e. lesser unneeded 
dependecy pulls, the better.

Thanks for your thoughtful review and your suggestions for improving the 

So, the locations now read:

The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
- URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/c++-annotations
- Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main 
contrib non-free
- dget 

pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB 

Reply to: