On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 08:53:31AM -0700, Sebastian Kuzminsky wrote:
> I'll remove the incorrect debian/* tags from the repo, re-write the
> changelog, and re-release version 20170925-1.
OK. (I fully subscribe to all remarks Sébastien did in his mail.)
> Should I leave the package as "UNRELEASED" (in the changelog) until it
> makes it further through the review process, or should the uploaded
> package be released (to unstable)?
Yes, please leave UNRELEASED. It is fine if the sponsor who uploads
resets this to unstable in the sponsoring process.
> Will there be a problem with the
> higher-numbered versions I've already uploaded to mentors.d.n?
I admit that I have no idea if this is an issue since I follow the same
policy as Sébastien to sponsor right from Git.
> > - the package description in debian/control is too cryptic. I am unable to
> > understand what the package does by just reading it. You should probably
> > expand it a little bit, in particular explaining the meaning of the
> > various
> > acronyms.
> Oops! Yeah, I can see how that's not clear to people outside this
> specific field, I'll try to rewrite it to be more accessible.
Just ping again here once this is done.
> I put the packaging repo on salsa , and I'd be happy to move it from
> my personal namespace to the Debian Science group, but my understanding
> is I don't have the authority to do that. (And I've not yet heard that
> Debian Science actually wants the package.)
If you set the Debian Science team as maintainer and since we agreed
that it fits from the content it is perfectly fine to move it. Just
apply for team membership and you get permission to do this.
Hope this helps
> 1: https://salsa.debian.org/seb_kuzminsky-guest/dxf2gcode