Hi Michael,

> >
> > +Tag: golang-missing-built-using
> > +Tag: golang-built-using-on-arch-all
> >
> > These seem quite "clumsy" wordings and difficult to understand when
> > out of context - can you try expanding them a little?
> Can you make a suggestion as to how they would be clearer please?

Hm. The difficult part of parsing it is the "built using" proper noun.
I don't have any thing I love but have you tried adding more nouns,
etc.? For example, golang-package-missing-built-using-{header,field}?
Or missing-built-using-X-for-golang-package. Or golang-built-using-
field-on-arch-all-package? Or arch-all-golang-package-{with,but}-built-
using-{field,header}. Or something.  :)

> > +            if ($arch eq 'all
> >  […]
> > +            if ($arch ne 'all'
> What would you consider cleaner? It seems fine to me.

I don't have a concrete example but my gut tells me there is a cleaner
structure that uses the fact that if $arch is "all", we don't need to
check 2 lines down that it is not "all". Again, nothing concrete but
some kind of "else" statement? :p 

> > Are we missing a Test-Depends in the "desc" file too? :)
> >
> Not sure what you mean?

Tests have a "/desc" file with Test-For, Test-Against etc. I am
querying whether this file should also have something along the
lines of:

  5:Test-Depends: dh-elpa

(Just a question, I don't have the answer to hand..!)

Best wishes,

     : :'  :     Chris Lamb
     `. `'`      la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk

Reply via email to