On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 20:24, Hans-Christoph Steiner <h...@at.or.at> wrote:
> Hey all,
> So I've been threatening with all those ITPs, now here's some more
> delivery ;). Here are a slew of short-form DH Pd library packages in
> two major families: simple and not-simple. They are all looking for
> sponsors :)
Uploaded. Please for the next upload inlude some text on pd and
puredata in the long description (that way if I search for pure data I
can find it). This comment applies for all pd libraries.
Please update the changelog when updating the package. The timestamp
helps people tell when was the last time someone worked on a package.
Also the long description is too short
I don't get the point of this package. Why reimplement builtin pd
objects in pd? Also, it depends on pd-list-abs which does not exist
> not-simple (have patches and other oddities)
Please update the changelog. And provide some explanation on what does
it actually do in the short and long descriptions. The git repository
is dirty with debhelper files.
Again, the changelog. It depends on pd-cyclone which is not on debian
yet. It also depends on pd-purepd, why? can't it use the pd builtins?
The lintian override in this case is not worth working around IMO (the
image-file-in-usr-lib one). Just override it. Also, in the long
description please elaborate on the objects contained in the package.
The changelog needs to be updated. There is no need for the BSD file
reference, it will be going away, and you already copied the entire
license. Same comment on the lintian warning as in the prevoius
Not in the git repository yet.
I've been thinking: all packages need to do the same fiddling with the
license and the shlibdeps thingy. Would it be possible to abstract
this in a makefile snippet? Hopefully one that is not tied to short
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list