Re: RFS: ne (QA upload)
Hello Ryan,
thanks for your review.
On 2009-09-25 08:14 +0200, Ryan Niebur wrote:
> I wouldn't include the authors in the long description, as that's kind
> of boring/useless information for the user. also, the short
> descriptions should follow the guidelines in devref, please read this
> page and adjust accordingly (no capital in "Documentation", should be
> a noun phrase, etc):
> http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-pkg-synopsis
>
> and I wouldn't mention that the acronym "ne" stands for "nice editor"
> in the short description, I'd move that to the long description.
I've updated that, also changed the capitalization as upstream's
homepage actually uses lower case.
> I will. I haven't tested that the package actually works, I'm assuming
> you already did that thoroughly enough and that it will work fine for
> me when I test it.
I'm not familiar with all the bells and whistles of ne (else I would
volunteer to maintain it), but basic features like opening, editing and
saving files work. Also, the editor finds it syntax files where I put
them.
> one other concern (and this isn't
> new in your changes) is that there's no copyright/license information
> for the Debian packaging. It's probably okay to assume the copyright
> years based on the debian/changelog and the license is the same as
> upstream. could please add this information (including a copyright
> statement for your work as well) to debian/copyright?
Did that as well. I've tried to reach the previous maintainer, but the
mail to his Debian address bounced (apparently when it got forwarded to
his non-Debian address; the qmail error messages from mail.gmx.net are a
bit cryptic). It is probably safe enough to assume that he's the
copyright holder of the files under debian/.
> also, I'd suggest that you look into using debhelper 7 minimized rules
> files (see "man dh"), tho this is completely up to you and is a
> personal preference kind of thing.
I've played around with this option today, and I actually like it.
Despite three overrides, debian/rules is only 20 lines long.
The version I just uploaded uses this small rules file.
> the rules file is fine as-is.
Almost, I actually forgot to call dh_testdir and dh_testroot in the
binary-indep target. One more reason to switch to dh(1) where such an
oversight is not possible.
> hm, one more thing. The information in README.Debian seems a bit out
> of place. It might be better to be patching that information into the
> upstream documention in the "Key Bindings" section, so that users are
> more likely to see it when they're reading the manual.
Maybe. For now I've only changed README.Debian to point to the section
in the manual, as it's a bit incomprehensible on its own. Also, I added
a paragraph about terminfo problems, as ne is really picky about
terminfo files and the backspace key currently deletes forwards in
xterm-256color terminal (to be fixed in ncurses-base).
> also, please forward your patches to upstream if you haven't already
> done so.
I had waited for the review here, will do so soon.
Meanwhile I uploaded a changed package to mentors.debian.net:
dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/n/ne/ne_2.0.3-1.dsc
Cheers,
Sven
Reply to: