Hi Joel, I wonder if you got my mail below, because I saw that I did not send it to you directly (it was only addressed to debian-mentors@lists.debian.org). Did you receive my comments? Any progress on your package?
Best Regards, Patrick On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 09:40:45AM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: > 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]
