Le Monday 04 August 2008 06:47:41 Ola Lundqvist, vous avez écrit : > Hi > > I have two comments on this package. > > 1) Please consider to name the package sqlline-java or similar. Not > strictly necessary but it do not clutter the namespace as much. :) AFAIK (and i'm not currently a DD :), and as said in [1], Java program "are ordinary programs, from the user point of view" so I dont see the need of appending "-java" to package name. For example, we don't append "-python" to every python program (take GRAMPS or apt-listchanges). We don't need to clutter package's names with programming language :) > 2) Do not strip the .orig.tar.gz file unless strictly necessary. In this > case I can not see that it is necessary. It would be good to ask upstream > if it is possible to release one version without GPL references... If that > is necessary is up to the ftp masters to decide though when accepting the > package. You're right, it's best to get a new release from upstream without GPL crufts but Marc Prud'hommeaux (upstream author) answer to me : " Unfortunately, I'm not going to have any time to make a new SQLLine release in the near future correcting the issue of the license file. " So for now, I'll revert to pristine upstream tarball and make a note in debian/README.source. Is it ok for you ? [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/java-policy/x86.html -- Damien Raude-Morvan / www.drazzib.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.