[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#770449: ITP, RFS for Caml Crush package



Le 21/11/2014 13:31, Thomas Calderon a écrit :
> I submitted an ITP (#770296) and an RFS (#770449) request regarding the
> packaging of Caml Crush.
> [...]

First remarks:

1. There is a "debian" directory in the upstream tarball, is that
   intentional? Keep in mind that is is ignored in favour of the
   one in .debian.tar.xz; the two agree for now, but this might
   change in the future.
2. Shouldn't the SOs of caml-crush-clients be installed in their own
   directory? Have you compared with existing PKCS#11 providers?
   Moreover, this might remove the need for Lintian overrides.
3. Consider the "Account Naming" section of [1].
4. Why do you enumerate architectures instead of using
   "Architecture: any"? Is the lack of arm64 on purpose?
5. I am suspicious about the package not using dh-ocaml. Especially on
   bytecode architectures.

[1] https://wiki.debian.org/AccountHandlingInMaintainerScripts


Cheers,

-- 
Stéphane


Reply to: