Thanks for the review.
On 03.09.2014 14:05, PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel wrote:
Hello, here a quick review of all the patches
* dropped docs package (REJECT-FAQ: split this only if it's big)
I think that this patch should be reverted.
The problem if you add the documentation in python-scoop seems to me
problematic when python3-scoop will come.
It is best to my opinion especially for the python pacakging to put the
documentation nto a dedicated package which can be recommended by python2 and
python3.
I do not think that this -doc package would be rejected by ftp-master. There
argument is understandable when you have only one binary pacakge.
But here we can intall python2 and/or python3 version but in both cases you
want the documentation.
O.k. I can set this up already.
* changelog: restored 'initial release' and added info on previous package
is there common binary packages between this old scoop package and the new
one ?
"scoop-doc" would be. But I would be tending to "python-scoop-doc" anyway.
By-the-way: what's your opinion for the dep of the docs package on the
main package, Suggests or Recommends?
Greetings,
Daniel
--
https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=debian%40danielstender.com
PGP key: 2048R/E41BD2D0
C879 5E41 1ED7 EE80 0F2E 7D0C DBDD 4D96 E41B D2D0
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54070b5b.5010...@danielstender.com
