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

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: