Re: Joining the team with new packages: rope and ropemacs
David Spreen <netzwurm@debian.org> writes:
> I am interested in joining the python-modules team with two new
> packages: rope and ropemacs. (binary packages are called python-rope
> and python-ropemacs).
Thank you! I have looked at these programs with interest, and look
forward to having them in Debian.
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=467377
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=492931
The package descriptions could be improved, per the guidelines at
<URL:http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging-practices#s-bpp-pkg-synopsis>
and
<URL:http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-pkg-desc>.
The synopses might better be:
Python refactoring library
Emacs mode for Python refactoring
The names "Emacs" and "Python" are properly capitalised that way, so
should be so in the synopsis.
The full descriptions are okay, but are too long (the bullet lists
should be paraphrased only to the essentials) and have too much
indentation (a single space for bulleted list items is customary).
Ropemacs is described as a "plugin"; this term isn't helpful for Emacs
users, where features are implemented via "modes" or other parts. Is
Ropemacs a "major mode", or something else? The description should
inform the user.
> I have one question as to the section of the python-ropemacs
> package. The package provides an emacs mode for Pymacs that is
> usable in emacs and enables all kinds of IDE-like features.
> Technically it is a python module (that's why I put it in section:
> python) but practically it is an emacs mode for python development.
> What do you think should be the proper section?
I think 'devel' is the best section. The over-use of the 'python'
section for packages that are merely implemented in Python makes it
almost meaningless.
--
\ “One seldom discovers a true believer that is worth knowing.” |
`\ —Henry L. Mencken |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
Reply to: