Hi Michael,
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:04:33AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
>
> gpaw-setups is a dependency of gpaw and not very useful independently I
> think? So I wonder why it should be on the blends page, do we assume
> users might want to install it on its own?
You are correct - it does not make much sense on the Blends page. I
have not verified before asking for it. I'll remove it again from the
tasks (which does not mean that I will refuse SoB for sure ;-)).
> Or is the plan to just document the dependency, but not have it show up
> there cause I don't see gpaw-setups on the physics blends web sentinel
> yet?
>
> I am not sure which format it implements for the data files it ships, is
> it some standard that could be picked up by other packages using PAW?
Further remark on the package after having a sponsoring look: Is there
any specific reason to name the source package gpaw-setups and the
resulting binary gpaw-data. For a single binary package it is more
convenient to choose the same name for both. I'm asking just for the
sake of interest since if you decide later for a name change it needs
another pass through the new queue.
Moreover I did two commits to Git:
1. cme fix dpkg-control
- fixing Vcs-Browser
- fixing line breaks in long description
- does other stuff for normalinsing.
-> please do do in future or fix the resulting lintian issues
otherwise
2. Added missing ${misc:Depends} as lintian was asking you to do
The last commit saying "Upload to new" is not really true until you
comment on the naming choice.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de