Bug#770449: ITP, RFS for Caml Crush package
Le 21/11/2014 13:31, Thomas Calderon a écrit :
> I submitted an ITP (#770296) and an RFS (#770449) request regarding the
> packaging of Caml Crush.
> [...]
First remarks:
1. There is a "debian" directory in the upstream tarball, is that
intentional? Keep in mind that is is ignored in favour of the
one in .debian.tar.xz; the two agree for now, but this might
change in the future.
2. Shouldn't the SOs of caml-crush-clients be installed in their own
directory? Have you compared with existing PKCS#11 providers?
Moreover, this might remove the need for Lintian overrides.
3. Consider the "Account Naming" section of [1].
4. Why do you enumerate architectures instead of using
"Architecture: any"? Is the lack of arm64 on purpose?
5. I am suspicious about the package not using dh-ocaml. Especially on
bytecode architectures.
[1] https://wiki.debian.org/AccountHandlingInMaintainerScripts
Cheers,
--
Stéphane
Reply to: