[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFS: aspell-kk

Hi Timur,

Timur Birsh wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder wrote:

>> I'm not a DD so I can't upload your package, but here are a few
>> nitpicks.
>> . It seems this uses aspell 0.60 format.  Shouldn't the package use
>>   Provides: aspell6-dictionary, then?
> In Debian Spelling Dictionaries and Tools Policy[1] 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outdated: 5½ years ago I would have been right) and

	Provides: aspell-dictionary

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 [1] 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,

[1] http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/debhelper_dh_overrides/

Reply to: