Re: RFS: treeline and treeline-i18n
I've repackaged TreeLine in only one orig files (that includes upstream
tarballs inside). The new files can be found, again, at:
http://baby.yi.org/packages/treeline/
BTW, Does anyone has a clue about which programs are used to translate .ts /
.qm files?
Greetings,
Miry
--- Miriam Ruiz <little_miry@yahoo.es> escribió:
> Hi Dato :)
>
> --- Adeodato Simó <dato@net.com.org.es> escribió:
>
> > * Miriam Ruiz [Thu, 02 Feb 2006 09:31:22 +0100]:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > My packages can temporarily be found at:
> > http://baby.yi.org/packages/treeline/
> >
> > The packages look good. I can upload them, these are my only concerns:
>
> Thanks :)
>
> > (1) As per upstream's require.html, the spell checker is not an
> > absolute dependency, and aspell is normally preferred. What about
> > this?:
> >
> > -Depends: python, python-qt3, ispell, ${misc:Depends}
> > +Depends: python, python-qt3, ${misc:Depends}
> > +Recommends: aspell | ispell
>
> Yes you're right. That may be more sensible. I've updated it.
>
> > (2) [minor suggestion, I don't mind leaving it as is] I'd personally
> > leave the end of this sentence out of the Debian description.
> >
> > TreeLine is written in Python and uses the PyQt bindings to the Qt
> > - toolkit, which makes it very portable.
> > + toolkit.
>
> I don't really mind too much, I've corrected it as it might be redundant for
> the description. It might be of interest to users knowing that they can be
> able to take their data files (xml) to many systems, but the last words
> probably are redundant with the rest of the sentence.
>
> > (3)
> >
> > > Package: treeline-i18n
> > > Description: translation files for treeline data manager
> >
> > Despite upstream shipping these two in separate tarballs, two separate
> > binaries _and_ source seems an overkill to me. Perhaps other -mentors
> > readers will disagree, but I'd look into shipping the translations in
> > the treeline package itself (most packages do ship translations
> > themselves, don't they?). This would mean repackaging, though.
>
> I found it overkill too, I was just not sure whether to repackage it (maybe
> putting original .tgz files inside a .orig.tar.gz?) or to leave them as they
> are. Do you think it might be better to repackage them? If I repackaged the
> original tarballs, would it be better to have just one binary?
>
> > Cheers,
>
> Greetings,
> Miry
______________________________________________
LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo.
Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto.
http://es.voice.yahoo.com
Reply to: