Hi Joel, sorry for answering myself so late, but I have been busy these days (and I am still but I'm trying to keep up today).
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 12:02:10AM -0300, Joel Franco wrote: > However, if you look ate the Debian available packages today, you will > see that the most do not follow that recommendation. Thats true, but not a charter for upcoming packages. Its just a sign that not everybody cares or cared about providing good descriptions. > Well, i have changed the nettee short description. Lets not focus too much on the short desc. Its more the long description that I care about. Something like "a network tee program" as a short description is okay, because tee is both a common tool and an English word. But the long description should tell the reader what exactly is a network tee program. I'm not very satisfied with that, because it uses an engineer language, but a program to clone computers over the LAN isn't obligatory used by an engineer. So the description must not be to complicated (and even for technical packages I pledge for use of normal language instead of technical terms). Here is a proposal: Description: a network tee program nettee is a program that can be used to transfer data from one computer to a number of computer nodes simultaneously at nearly full speed of the network it is connected to. . A common use-case for this application is for cloning computer partitions and disks or moving large database files. . Its advantage over netcat+tee is, that it is more simple and can survive to error conditions like computer nodes dead and transfer courruption. > >Please move it to the source package part of the package, for example > >after the maintainer line. > > ok Oh, got quiet high. Well, thats okay, while personally I would have preferred to move it somewhat lower in the source package part (for example below the maintainer line or so). > :) now i understand. i made it. Good. > Sorry, but it isn't still very clear to me. I understand that the > copyright file must refer to the Debian license files in a generic way > and not in a particular way to this package. Hu? Now I don't understand you. > Right. That's fine and now i understand why it's useful. > I have corrected it now :) Good. > >- debian/changelog: Needs some work. Changelog entries are not as they > > should be. See [1] for some instructions. > > i'd read that, i'm more conscious about that and have changed somethings. > However, i have to maintain the minimal changes mentionated because it's one > of > my first packages. The last entry is _very_ confusing. You describe about 6 changes in _one_ changelog entry and no changelog describes _why_ something has been changed. But thats bad. After all the sense of the changelog is for someone else then you (and you, too, in the future) to understand what has been changed and why it has been changed (which affect does the change have?). > >- debian/README.Debian is still in the package. Remember that I and Paul told > > you, that its content is not really what the README.Debian is for. > > i don't know which is the better way to fix this issue: i should send it to > the > upstream author or I should rename it to something reflecting the my > particular > use? I'd suggest you to send it upstream. But it is not suited for README.Debian, because this file is for Debian specific notes, which this certainly is not. Best Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
