On 2018-12-16 21:25:08, trebmuh@tuxfamily.org wrote: > > An ITP bug, yes. It's not required, but recommended and good practice. > > OK, done here: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=916638 > > That's the first time I'm doing so and I copied/pasted/modified from other > current ITP bugs. > I hope the result is good. If not, please let me know. Thanks. > > - The Description of the binary package needs some work. Does it really > > matter > > which toolkit was used to build the GUI? > > I thought it was a good idea to give DPF a bit of visibility and > acknowledgement here. > If you think it's not useful, I'm fine with removing this. Please let me > know. It doesn't really add anything. First, the description does not give enough information for "DPF" to be meaningful. Searching for "DPF" or "DPF toolkit", I mostly find results about diesel particulate filters and cleaning toolkits, as well as pdftk. Second, as a user installing dragonfly-reverb, does it matter to me if it is built with DPF or something else? As I see it, the main selling point of this package is that it provides hall-style reverb with various presets including studios, small halls, medium halls, large halls, and so on as standalone application, LV2 plugin, and VST plugin. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature