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

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



Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> Hi Philippe,
>   
Hi Thijs,
I get back to you and mentors lists
> 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.
>   
Thank you for doing this
> I've got the following comments:
>
> debian/changelog:
> * 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? 
No never , it was the previous work done upstream,
I contacted them to finish that packaging job
I made this clearer in the current version
> * You may want to close the ITP bug in your changelog entry.
>   
Done
> debian/control:
> * 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.
>   
whitedune is a fork of dune,
So I replaced any "dune" or "white_dune" occurences by "whitedune"
>   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.
>   
true
> * 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?
>   
those fields where set by previous authors,

I have to agrea they don't respect the suggest: policy
(removed)
> * 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
>   environment).
>   
Done,
> debian/docs:
>  * You install quite some docs in the regular "whitedune" package.
>    Why are these not in whitedune-docs?
>   
fixed
>  * 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.
>   
done
> When reviewing the changes you made to the upstream software, I see you
> (accidentally) dropped the word "rights." from COPYING. You also seem to
>   
weird mistake fixed
> make whitespace-only changes to the upstream source, e.g. in Makefile.
> Is that necessary?
>   
there are more than just whitespace , which files are you talking about ?
> Did you forward your changes to upstream code and docs to the upstream
> authors?
>   
Yes, now they're busy with their "beta" version, I think they included
all my fixes
> Good luck with your package!
>   
thank you for your time and wishes
but are you candidate for sponsoring it ?

If yes fell free to check the version at :
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/whitedune/

Later

-- 
 # mailto:rzr[a]users.sf.net -- gpg:0x467094BC
 # http://rzr.online.fr/contribs.htm -- Libre Software Addict
 # xmpp:rzr[a]jabber.fr -- sip:rzr[a]ekiga.net


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: