On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 06:46:04PM -0300, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > Could someone verify if what I did is OK? It's the first multiple-binary > package that I make!
- Don't make raster3d depend on raster3d-doc, a suggests: or at most recommends: is enough. Oh, does raster3d-doc contain data files necessary for running raster3d? In that case, you should probably rename it to raster3d-common or raster3d-data to avoid confusion. - You could split up the patches you are doing to the upstream source into logical pieces and keep them under debian/patches via a patch-system like dpatch, quilt or CDBS' simple-patchsys. That makes (i) source management easier as you might forget which change belongs to which patch or for which reason (or a new maintainer might not know at all) and (ii) makes it easier to keep the Debian package in a revision control system like CVS, arch or subversion, as the Debian diff would only touch files under debian/ and thus only this directory would need to be in revision control. - The more-or-less canonical staging directory for installing stuff to be distributed into several binary packages in debian/tmp, so you could just use that (and CDBS would use it anyway). - You could perhaps put the manpages into debian/raster3d.manpages. Anyway, those are just nitpicks (expect perhaps the first point), the package looks nice on a first quick glance. > BTW, I am learning a lot here... I have learnt CDBS, Your raster3d package doesn't appear to use CDBS :) cheers, Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
