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

Re: RFS: whitedune : Graphical VRML97 viewer, editor, 3D modeller and animation tool

Hi Philippe,

On Sat, 2007-01-20 at 00:35 +0100, Philippe Coval wrote:
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "whitedune".

Thank you for your work. I've taken a look.

I've got the following comments:

* The changelog mentions two previous versions from 2002, but I can't
  find these anywhere (in the archive or on snapshot.d.n). Have they
  been in Debian? Does your package share any history with those?

* You may want to close the ITP bug in your changelog entry.

* The extended description for whitedune could use some formatting
  newlines to make it easier to read. While you're at it, I find it 
  to be a bit confusing. The program seems to be called "white_dune"
  some of the times and Dune otherwise. It may be better to start
  the description with what whitedune specifically can do, and then
  use later paragraphs to go into detail on what VRML is for those
  who don't know.

  Information about where to find information on translating is
  a bit overkill for the extended description. You should consider
  that this text is meant to be read before installing the package,
  to know whether it will be useful to you. The details can be contained
  in the /usr/share/doc dir which is available after installation.

* You provide a whitedune-doc package, but the whitedune package does
  not "Suggests" it.

* You are "Suggests"-ing other tools that seem to provide similar
  functionality to whitedune. If you have whitedune, how would
  installing those other packages improve the way you use whitedune?

* The package does not build because aclocal is needed. You might
  need to depend on automake1.9 to make this work (try pbuilder or
  cowbuilder to test whether your packages build in a clean

 * You install quite some docs in the regular "whitedune" package.
   Why are these not in whitedune-docs?

 * You duplicate some of the files here in "whitedune.docs" which does
   the same (docs means: docs to be installed in the first binary
   package, which is whitedune). You can safely drop whitedune.docs.

When reviewing the changes you made to the upstream software, I see you
(accidentally) dropped the word "rights." from COPYING. You also seem to
make whitespace-only changes to the upstream source, e.g. in Makefile.
Is that necessary?

Did you forward your changes to upstream code and docs to the upstream

Good luck with your package!


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: