Re: RFS: rsplib
On Tuesday 17 June 2008, Thomas Dreibholz wrote:
> Dear mentors,
the package seems to be in a good shape, but here are some remarks:
No need to use the trailing "unstable1" in the version string
(2.5.0~beta7-0unstable1) since the package is also supposed to migrate to
testing at some point ;-) ... or you have any good reasons to have it that
way, I can't think of at the moment ?
Too generic names for some binaries are used, like terminal, server, fork,
which does not says much about their function and would most probalby cause a
filename clash sooner or later (if others do the same), hence a useless
package conflict should be declared, which would be at least suboptimal. One
option could be to prepend your binaries with rsp-*. For instance, you can
consult "apt-file search server | grep bin" to see how other packages avoid
the generic names.
licensecheck (from devscripts package) reports most of the files being
licensed "v3 or later", but dispatcher.[c|h] is "v2 or later" and doesn't
have a copyright. The former might not a problem since v3 could be assumed,
while the latter is best to be corrected. These were probably overlooked.
Since you are also the upstream is should be relatively easy to resolve
I would gladly sponsor such a well crafted piece of software, but I don't feel
appropriate since I'm currently not familiar with Reliable Server Pooling
business at all, so I hope you will find sponsor proper.
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB
- RFS: rsplib
- From: Thomas Dreibholz <email@example.com>