Re: RFS: nettee
I wonder if you got my mail below, because I saw that I did not send it
to you directly (it was only addressed to
email@example.com). Did you receive my comments?
Any progress on your package?
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 09:40:45AM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> Hi Joel,
> sorry for answering myself so late, but I have been busy these days (and
> I am still but I'm trying to keep up today).
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 12:02:10AM -0300, Joel Franco wrote:
> > However, if you look ate the Debian available packages today, you will
> > see that the most do not follow that recommendation.
> Thats true, but not a charter for upcoming packages. Its just a sign
> that not everybody cares or cared about providing good descriptions.
> > Well, i have changed the nettee short description.
> Lets not focus too much on the short desc. Its more the long description
> that I care about. Something like "a network tee program" as a short
> description is okay, because tee is both a common tool and an English
> word. But the long description should tell the reader what exactly is a
> network tee program. I'm not very satisfied with that, because it uses
> an engineer language, but a program to clone computers over the LAN
> isn't obligatory used by an engineer. So the description must not be to
> complicated (and even for technical packages I pledge for use of normal
> language instead of technical terms).
> Here is a proposal:
> Description: a network tee program
> nettee is a program that can be used to transfer data from one computer
> to a number of computer nodes simultaneously at nearly full speed of the
> network it is connected to.
> A common use-case for this application is for cloning computer
> partitions and disks or moving large database files.
> Its advantage over netcat+tee is, that it is more simple and can
> survive to error conditions like computer nodes dead and transfer
> > >Please move it to the source package part of the package, for example
> > >after the maintainer line.
> > ok
> Oh, got quiet high. Well, thats okay, while personally I would have
> preferred to move it somewhat lower in the source package part (for
> example below the maintainer line or so).
> > :) now i understand. i made it.
> > Sorry, but it isn't still very clear to me. I understand that the
> > copyright file must refer to the Debian license files in a generic way
> > and not in a particular way to this package.
> Hu? Now I don't understand you.
> > Right. That's fine and now i understand why it's useful.
> > I have corrected it now :)
> > >- debian/changelog: Needs some work. Changelog entries are not as they
> > > should be. See  for some instructions.
> > i'd read that, i'm more conscious about that and have changed somethings.
> > However, i have to maintain the minimal changes mentionated because it's one of
> > my first packages.
> The last entry is _very_ confusing. You describe about 6 changes in
> _one_ changelog entry and no changelog describes _why_ something has
> been changed. But thats bad. After all the sense of the changelog
> is for someone else then you (and you, too, in the future) to understand
> what has been changed and why it has been changed (which affect does the
> change have?).
> > >- debian/README.Debian is still in the package. Remember that I and Paul told
> > > you, that its content is not really what the README.Debian is for.
> > i don't know which is the better way to fix this issue: i should send it to the
> > upstream author or I should rename it to something reflecting the my particular
> > use?
> I'd suggest you to send it upstream. But it is not suited for
> README.Debian, because this file is for Debian specific notes, which
> this certainly is not.
> Best Regards,