On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 01:46:06AM (+0200), Sebastien Badia wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 05:40:03PM (+0000), Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > > * you are also shipping a binary in /usr/bin; that imho shouldn't be in > > a package named python3-* which usually denotes a library, or anyway > > an application which implementation language matters. > > I do not know lecm, but I'd probably name everything 'lecm', or > > perhaps only the python library in a binary python3-lecm. > > but I'm not sure if what I'm saying makes sense for this case. > > (note that also lintian notices this, with > > library-package-name-for-application) > > Yeah! I asked myself the question, and indeed, it's only a binary, so you're > right. Should rename also the source package?
Hello, Any comment about this point? Anyway, I just imported a new release, and addressed all points mentioned here, (thanks for the review!) If you want to take a look :) https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/letsencrypt/python-lecm.git Thanks in advance! Seb
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Letsencrypt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/letsencrypt-devel
