On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:15:24PM +0200, Andreas Rönnquist wrote: > (in this case - RFR = Request For Review - I am not sure if its a > used/correct abbreviation)
Correct. > Could someone please check out my devilspie2 package? Yes. > It is a continuation of the original Devilspie by Ross Burton, but with > the major difference that the symbolic expressions of the original and > their iterpreter are replaced by much simpler and easier maintainable > LUA code. > > It is written in C, with a simple makefile as build system (My first try > at a package using a Makefile, I have used cmake in the past) - and also > using CDBS. This kind of comment *really* helps understanding what your package is about. I would like to see this in every RFR/RFS. > I could (amongst other stuff) take some hints regarding the short/long > descriptions. Both of your descriptions focus on explaining how devilspie2 does things. A user first looking at your package wants to know what your package does. Your short description explains that devilspie2 can match windows, but the use - acting on them - is only implied. Maybe your long description could give a specific use case? The information about LUA and the origin of this package are clearly useful, but I would put them to the end of the description. > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/devilspie2/devilspie2_0.08-1.dsc debian/docs: I think you shouldn't ship the GPL-3, because you already correctly reference /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-3 from debian/copyright. debian/rules: Maybe you can also clean up the dh_make comments? Helmut -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111014062654.gb15...@alf.mars
