Hi, I've got a question about the debian-science policy and lintian. If I try to mind the policy http://debian-science.alioth.debian.org/debian-science-policy.html#idp4869552 , the first four lines of my "debian/control" look as follows:
Source: fits Section: science Priority: extra Maintainer: Debian Science Maintainers <[email protected]> So far, my binary package is called "libfits-java". In that case, lintian complains about the section chosen for the package: W: libfits-java: wrong-section-according-to-package-name libfits-java => java N: N: This package has a name suggesting that it belongs to a section other N: than the one it is currently categorized in. N: N: Severity: normal, Certainty: possible N: N: Check: fields, Type: binary, udeb, source N: Apart from the too generic name of my package (see Ole's remark below), what is considered good practice for naming a scientific java package? Am 26.11.2012 17:10, schrieb Olе Streicher: > Hi Florian, > > Florian Rothmaier <[email protected]> writes: >> * Package name : fits >> [...] >> * License : public-domain > > Some short comments: > > * I would not name the (source) package "fits" since this is too short > and misleading (I would expect a generic fits handling package there, > not a java specific one). Since it is a java package, "fits-java" or > "libfits-java" (the same as your library package) would IMO fit better. > > * Since the original code is under PD, would you consider to put the > Debian package under a less restrictive license than GPL? @Ole: Following the recommendation of the debian-legal guys, I put the Debian package under the CC0. > > * I would announce the ITP also in the debian-java mailing list, and > also ask for review and sponsorship in all three lists (mentors, > science, java). > > Cheers > > Ole > > Cheers, Florian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
