> - The second paragraph of the long description is not helpful to the > debian user trying to decide whether to install the package; we try > not to waste space in the description because it is stored in many > places (e.g. /var/lib/dpkg/available). You are welcome to add a > README.Debian file if you want to say more about the project.
Removed the second paragraph. > > - rather than putting TODO in debian/control, it is better have a > seperate TODO file that will be installed by dh_installdocs Added debian/TODO, cleaned debian/control. > - In your debian/copyright file, you should mention the license for your > packaging. It would be a good idea to have a seperate header line for > license and to explicitly say by each copyright holder (NAG, Axiom > Team) what license applies (do they all use the BSD-like mentioning > NAG, or are there variants?). Mentioned copyright for debian/* Made OA copyright notice more clear, I think. > - I'm confused why debian/open-axiom.png is listed in > debian/source/include-binaries, but not include in the source > package. Previous experiment? Yep, removed debian/source/include-binaries > - Don't think removing the "compiled from" lines is needed, but it is > your call. The shebang lines I agree should go. FASL-files are compiled from intermediate (produced from *.spad) lisp code, so references to this code does not make substantial sense. Also these line can disclose paths on a build machine. > - at some point you should consider adding some metadata to your > patches. I typically just use git-format-patch, but if using straight > quilt you may want to look at http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/. Sure, but now all patches are quite obvious. So, I have uploaded new version with corrections you suggested. Please review it. Thanks for your efforts :-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
