Bug#739056: RFS: cwm/5.1-1 [ITP] -- Lightweight and efficient window manager for X11
On 14 April 2014 16:01, Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org> wrote:
> * James McDonald <james@jamesmcdonald.com>, 2014-04-10, 20:46:
>> I have added a simple patch to fix this for the time being.
>
> Great. Now that all *FLAGS from environment are honoured, there should be
> need to pass CFLAGS explicitly in debian/rules; just calling dh_auto_build
> should be enough.
Fixed.
> You could avoid the dh_auto_clean override by adding “changelog” to
> debian/clean.
Good plan. I also added 'openbsd-cwm', as it is no longer cleaned
after a signed build because the Makefile changes get reverted during
signing.
>> haven't modified the contents of the man pages. Should I do so?
>
> I think so.
>
>> If so, just where the binary name is referenced, or globally?
>
> The former.
Done.
> The default locking program is “xlock”. But we don't have “xlock” in Debian,
> so it's probably not the best choice…
I have changed the default to "xscreensaver-command -lock", and added
information in README.Debian explaining that xscreensaver has to be
running for that to work. I also added a Recommends: xscreensaver.
> The default terminal emulator is “xterm”. I think that “x-terminal-emulator”
> (see policy §11.8.3) would be a better choice.
Quite right. I have made that change.
> (But if you choose to keep
> xterm as the default, then please add “xterm” to Recommends. I didn't have
> xterm installed, and not being able to spawn a terminal was rather
> unpleasant experience.)
Indeed. Furthermore, it means customisation of alternatives will be
properly reflected by the default window manager configuration.
> Was the priority of the x-window-manager alternative computed in accordance
> with Policy §11.8.4? (I don't think it was, but I could be wrong.)
No, it wasn't. So many policies to learn! I have fixed it now.
--
James
Reply to: