Hi Andreas, On 05.02.2018 at 11:43, Andreas Tille wrote: >> The packaging is here (I'd like to move it to .../science-team/... before >> uploading) >> >> https://salsa.debian.org/rinni-guest/node-pinkyswear > > Could you please move to science-team first to make me evaluate the final > status of the package?
Done: https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/node-pinkyswear [The remarks for debian/control hold here as well. But I'd prefer to not change it for this package as I still hope to get it under the javascript umbrella sometime.] >> And here it the packaging of node-shiny-server-client which should be in >> science-team anyway >> >> https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/node-shiny-server-client > > I've requested a release tag on Github[1]. This would help to create a > sensible watch file. Ah, that's a good idea! > Moreover some cosmetic remark: I'm very used to the cme file layout of > debian/control. You get it when using > > cme fix dpkg-control > > ... at least under normal conditions. Cme is not yet adapted to salsa > so it does not yet work with the current control file. I hacked around > this and commited the result. I do not insist in this form but in teams > with lots of contributors its nice to have some common layout to let > the packages look somehow "familiar" for sponsors. If you have strong > esthetic reasons to insist on your old formatting feel free to revert > my last commit. > > Both things are no reason to stop me from sponsoring. So if you confirm > that my last commit is fine for you I'll upload as it is now - otherwise > I'll upload your latest commit. For me it's OK. I tried to stick to the Node.js packaging template to make it easier for Noe.js people to review it. As this package will stay in science-team anyway I think using the cme file layout is fine. Thanks for the review! Philip
