On Sat, 2008-08-30 at 02:01 -0600, David Baird wrote: > On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 2:54 AM, Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 07:17 +0000, dhbaird wrote: > >> * Package name : pure > > > > I can't help thinking that 'pure-lang' would be a much better package > > name rather than using such a common word that has multiple meanings. > > Agreed. This is my first time doing a package for Debian, and I'm > inexperienced with using Debian's systems. Is there something I need > to do to fix this up in Debian's bug system Retitle the ITP (use 'bts' from the devscripts package) and send an email to the bug report with the updated ITP template. > >> Version : 0.5 > >> Upstream Author : Albert Gräf <Dr.Graef at t-online.de> > >> * URL : http://pure-lang.sourceforge.net/ > >> * License : GPLv3 > >> Programming Lang: C, C++, LLVM > >> Description : functional programming language based on term rewriting > > > > Long description would appear to be missing. > > Oops :-( Sorry. I've got this taken care of, to some extent in the > package that I've been working on. I just didn't put it in the ITP > report. Basically, here is a copy-and-paste from the Pure website: And that needs to be trimmed down. :-) Basically, distill the paste into two (shortish) paragraphs that do not leave terms undefined but cover enough ground that ARandomUser who has not seen this package before will get a good idea of whether it is relevant to their needs. Once packaged, debtags will allow more classification. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part