Paul Wise wrote: > On Nov 19, 2007 5:53 AM, Robin Cornelius <robin.cornelius@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "libcares". > > Awww, Debian definitely needs more caring, here is a review of your package. > > Upstream source package is c-ares rather than libcares, any reason for > the change? My reasoning was the existing Debian package which c-ares was forked from is libares. So I though it made sense to use a similar naming convention. Also when I first needed c-ares, i knew it was -lcares so I searched for libcares and cares which produces nothing useful, it took me a long time to actually find out the package is called c-ares. Which way do you suggest I should go with the naming? I can recreate a c-ares package if required or stick with the libcares name. Out of interest do you have a check-list or just use experience to spot issues with packages? (I am of cause aware of the various policy and maintainer guide documents etc.). I wonder if many of the issues you have pulled me up on could be made into lintian warnings? In any case I will use your comments to form my own check-list. Regards Robin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature