>>>>> "Charles" == Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Charles> Le Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 04:42:39AM +0100, David Bremner a
Charles> écrit :
Charles> I have added your package on the following wiki page:
Charles> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianScienceBibliography If you
Charles> want, can you update it when bibutils gets accepted in
Charles> Debian?
Sure, and I will send a message debian-science when I upload the next
version to mentors.
Charles> Although I am not a DD, I have a few comments on your
Charles> package:
Thank you for your review.
Charles> * debian/copyright: bibutils is released under the GPLv2
Charles> or any later version. Also, you have to include the thee
Charles> paragraphs from the "How to Apply These Terms to Your New
Charles> Programs" section of the GPL to the copyright
Charles> file. Lastly, the copyright of C. Putnam starts from
Charles> 1995.
Ahh, OK, I'll sort this out.
Charles> * debian/docs: has a duplicated line.
Hmm, good catch. Actually this file is only about building so I
deleted it.
Charles> Personnaly, I do not build the manpages
Charles> at buildd time anymore, I just regenerate them only if
Charles> they really changed, and include the .1 files in the
Charles> source package.
Hmm, OK, I see how this could reduce the build dependencies. I have
some vague memory of dh_link for man pages being frowned upon, but
maybe it is just slightly more work. It seems slightly nicer to use
to use the <refname></refname> than a seperate list of links (e.g. for
using the file outside Debian), but it is not a big deal.
Charles> * debian/control: are you sure you need the autotools.dev
Charles> package? Will the config.(sub|guess) files be used by the
Charles> configure script?
Ah, again I missed this. Actually the package does not even use
autotools, so I removed this.
Charles> * debian/rules: are you sure that you need to run the
Charles> configure script? If not, you can drop the
Charles> build-dependancy on csh.
Hmm. The script is simple, and I could write a replacement, but
something has to generate a Makefile. The script could be replaced
with a few sed invocations. This makes the package slightly more
fragile with respect to upgrades; do you think this is worth it to
drop the dependency?
Charles> PS: actually, debhelper is very smart and replaces the
Charles> .so manpages by symlinks !
Right, so do you think there is any reason not to rely on this?
Thanks again for your help,
David
