Re: RFS: aspell-kk
Timur Birsh wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> I'm not a DD so I can't upload your package, but here are a few
>> . It seems this uses aspell 0.60 format. Shouldn't the package use
>> Provides: aspell6-dictionary, then?
> In Debian Spelling Dictionaries and Tools Policy I can't find any
> information on it. Possibly there are another documents with guidelines on
> the dictionaries packaging?
Not that I know of. Anyway, it seems I was wrong here (or rather
outdated: 5½ years ago I would have been right) and
is right after all. Sorry for the confusion.
>> . debian/rules could be made much simpler by using dh. Not a problem
>> but it would make me happier to have less to read. :)
>> (In that format, it becomes obvious what specific customizations a
>> package has made to the usual sequence.)
> I'm using debhelper to build a package.
Nothing wrong with that. :) See  for the variation I was suggesting.
>> . Similarly, I wonder if debian/postinst and debian/postrm are needed.
>> Won't debhelper set those up automatically?
> AFAIK, "set -e" and "exit 0" are recommended to use in maintainer scripts by
> Debian Policy.
Doesn't debhelper add those automatically?
In other words, for curiosity's sake I'd suggest removing
debian/postinst and debian/postrm, rebuilding and reinstalling the
package, and looking at
FWIW I didn't test your package but I didn't see anything that should
prevent someone from uploading it.
Thanks for your work,