2011/11/5 Leo 'costela' Antunes <[email protected]>: > [taking the liberty of adding reply-to:mentors, to avoid further > cross-posting, but inform gnome-devels of intention to review/sponsor] > > Hi,
Hi, thanks for take time reviewing the package. > The package seems good, but I have a couple of structural comments: > - is there a reason for not packaging the schema files in the > respective extension-packages? > - since all bin-packages already depend on -common, why not link > /usr/share/doc/g-s-e-* → /usr/share/doc/g-s-e-common? This saves a bit > of duplication. Ok. Done in version -2. > And a couple of very minor notes: > - how about changing the binary names to *-extension-* instead of > *-extensionS-* ? No problem with that. Done in version -2. > - are you actually using the REV/VER variables in debian/rules? Since > REV parses for bzr, I'd guess this is left-over from a copy-paste? Copy and paste mistake. Removed in version -2. > - you check for bz2 in the watch file, but used a gz for your first > package (obviously not an error, just a minor inconsistency) As you can see in [0] there will be no more gz sources in the future. > If no pkg-gnome maintainer objects, I could upload it in the coming week. That will be great. You can get the sources here [1] or [2] Thanks again. [0] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/devel-announce-list/2011-May/msg00004.html [1] git://github.com/linuxmaniac/pkg_gnome-shell-extensions.git [2] http://linuxmaniac.torreviejawireless.org/debian/gnome-shell-extensions/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caagy_vmhgcyuxfrpjfa5r3tdgfdnthioaqb6cambpqj_zwr...@mail.gmail.com
