Bug#732200: (no subject)
Thanks for the replies! I needed to give these guidelines a better look
to have this application up to standard. I have taken a look at the To
update on some work tonight.
"Fixed" (In double quotes):
Java package names corrected to the proper top-level domain
(com.dmaiorino.OpenTimeZoneConverter).
Suggested package name:
For the suggested name, how about "tzdateconverter". This should
compress the meaning that this is a timezone date converter. Hopefully
it is readable without hyphens. If this works, I will update the module
name above as well (Too verbose).
Package Description:
Sorry for this mistake, I did not realize this would be the actual
description used in the package. Using the suggestions, I have
re-written to remove first person and unnecessary descriptions:
/*
Short Description : A program to convert the time and date between two
time zones.
Long Description: This Java program allows users to convert the time and
date between two time zones. Features include allowing the user to
choose a timezone for only certain regions and a save/restore function
for the current time zone info.
Homepage: https://github.com/DMaiorino/TimeZoneConverter
*/
Needed Features:
1) Support different languages
2) Allow for different date formats.
3) 12/24 hour settings
Questions:
1. "please use system-supplied widgets on the right hand panel
too". For this request, my idea was to limit the amount of knobs that
could be touched. So the date and time the user knows would be but on
the left, and the result they wanted would be on the right. Would it
make sense to have this adjustable on both sides.
2. Copyrights. Would anybody know if we need to add copyrights for
the classes used in this program? The program runs fine with OpenJDK as
well, so maybe a solution would be to package it to run with OpenJDK?
3. Java Packaging: I see the following website examples,
http://pkg-java.alioth.debian.org/examples/. At what point should I
follow these examples to package this program? Should I have the current
GitHub updated for this packaging, or would this be different?
Reply to: