Re: RFS: shedskin
On Saturday 26 November 2011 23:50:59 Benoît Knecht wrote:
>
> I had a look at your package, here are my comments:
Thanks for taking the time to look at my package. I value your input.
> - lintian -I --pedantic gives a couple of warnings:
> I: shedskin source: quilt-patch-missing-description makefile.py.patch
> P: shedskin source: unversioned-copyright-format-uri
Here, the documentation needs to be a lot better than it is: all the examples
use <VERSIONED_FORMAT_URL> instead of something that is actually an example.
I found the following discussion about this:
http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-devel@lists.debian.org/msg296571.html
> http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ P: shedskin: no-upstream-changelog
I'll try and pester the author to add something, but I can't make any
guarantees in the short term.
> - You could simplify your debian/copyright file by using a standalone
> License paragraph for the Expat license. Also, I think most of the
> Comments are not really useful (especially the last one); if they're
> not about copyright issues, they should be removed.
Others have suggested this, but it might be nice to put them somewhere. Do you
have any suggestions? I've been inclined to mark the different works with
comments because it shows who did what at a glance, but if people really
object to this (I know the computer cannot understand the information) then
I'll remove them.
> - As far as I can tell, the test suite is not being run.
The test suite takes a very long time to run, so I think I'd only incorporate
it into the packaging if there's a way of controlling whether it gets run or
not. I think the following may need to be something I should consider:
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-debianrules-options
> - If you turn doc/shedskin.rst into a man page, you don't need to
> install that file.
OK. I was mostly thinking of convenience by not excluding it: users could
potentially convert it to HTML, for example, if they don't like man pages.
Again, I'm not insisting on this, so if people object to this as well then
I'll drop it.
> - In the man page, the OPTIONS section should be right after the
> DESCRIPTION, LIMITATIONS should be called BUGS, and THANKS and
> COPYRIGHT should in my opinion be removed. The AUTHOR section is
> also strongly discouraged. See man-pages(7) for details.
Thanks for pointing this out. I'll take this up with the author, since he is
trying to follow man page conventions as closely as possible.
> I did not install or run the program, so I cannot comment further on it.
Thanks once again for checking my packaging files. I'll incorporate your
suggestions and also coordinate this effort with Luca Bruno who also
responded to my message.
Paul
Reply to: