Re: RFS/RFC: bibutils; convert bibliographic data between formats

[David Bremner <bremner@unb.ca>]

>>>>> "Charles" == Charles Plessy <charles-debian-nospam@plessy.org> writes:

    Charles> Le Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 04:42:39AM +0100, David Bremner a
    Charles> écrit :
    
    Charles> I have added your package on the following wiki page:
    Charles> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianScienceBibliography If you
    Charles> want, can you update it when bibutils gets accepted in
    Charles> Debian?

Sure, and I will send a message debian-science when I upload the next
version to mentors.

    Charles> Although I am not a DD, I have a few comments on your
    Charles> package:

Thank you for your review.

    Charles> * debian/copyright: bibutils is released under the GPLv2
    Charles> or any later version. Also, you have to include the thee
    Charles> paragraphs from the "How to Apply These Terms to Your New
    Charles> Programs" section of the GPL to the copyright
    Charles> file. Lastly, the copyright of C. Putnam starts from
    Charles> 1995.

Ahh, OK, I'll sort this out.

    Charles> * debian/docs: has a duplicated line.

Hmm, good catch. Actually this file is only about building so I
deleted it.

    Charles> Personnaly, I do not build the manpages
    Charles> at buildd time anymore, I just regenerate them only if
    Charles> they really changed, and include the .1 files in the
    Charles> source package. 

Hmm, OK, I see how this could reduce the build dependencies.  I have
some vague memory of dh_link for man pages being frowned upon, but
maybe it is just slightly more work.  It seems slightly nicer to use
to use the <refname></refname> than a seperate list of links (e.g. for
using the file outside Debian), but it is not a big deal.

    Charles> * debian/control: are you sure you need the autotools.dev
    Charles> package? Will the config.(sub|guess) files be used by the
    Charles> configure script?

Ah, again I missed this. Actually the package does not even use
autotools, so I removed this.

    Charles> * debian/rules: are you sure that you need to run the
    Charles> configure script?  If not, you can drop the
    Charles> build-dependancy on csh.

Hmm. The script is simple, and I could write a replacement, but
something has to generate a Makefile. The script could be replaced
with a few sed invocations. This makes the package slightly more
fragile with respect to upgrades; do you think this is worth it to
drop the dependency? 

    Charles> PS: actually, debhelper is very smart and replaces the
    Charles> .so manpages by symlinks !

Right, so do you think there is any reason not to rely on this?  

Thanks again for your help,

David