Re: RFS: open-axiom
> - The second paragraph of the long description is not helpful to the
> debian user trying to decide whether to install the package; we try
> not to waste space in the description because it is stored in many
> places (e.g. /var/lib/dpkg/available). You are welcome to add a
> README.Debian file if you want to say more about the project.
Removed the second paragraph.
>
> - rather than putting TODO in debian/control, it is better have a
> seperate TODO file that will be installed by dh_installdocs
Added debian/TODO, cleaned debian/control.
> - In your debian/copyright file, you should mention the license for your
> packaging. It would be a good idea to have a seperate header line for
> license and to explicitly say by each copyright holder (NAG, Axiom
> Team) what license applies (do they all use the BSD-like mentioning
> NAG, or are there variants?).
Mentioned copyright for debian/*
Made OA copyright notice more clear, I think.
> - I'm confused why debian/open-axiom.png is listed in
> debian/source/include-binaries, but not include in the source
> package. Previous experiment?
Yep, removed debian/source/include-binaries
> - Don't think removing the "compiled from" lines is needed, but it is
> your call. The shebang lines I agree should go.
FASL-files are compiled from intermediate (produced from *.spad)
lisp code, so references to this code does not make substantial sense.
Also these line can disclose paths on a build machine.
> - at some point you should consider adding some metadata to your
> patches. I typically just use git-format-patch, but if using straight
> quilt you may want to look at http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/.
Sure, but now all patches are quite obvious.
So, I have uploaded new version with corrections you suggested.
Please review it.
Thanks for your efforts :-)
Reply to: