On 26 Nov 2012, at 21:37, Nicholas Bamber <nicho...@periapt.co.uk> wrote:
> 1.) I didn't notice it first time but the last paragraph of the long > description is a bit like advertising. I see what you mean. I've removed some of it and reworded the rest. Does that look OK now? > 2.) The upstream changelog issue is still there. I seem to recall > suggesting some solutions but at the least there should be a lintian > override. As this is the first Linux release of cwm, I've just copied the 'initial release' changelog from the README file. For future releases (hopefully coming soon) I'll make sure there is a more detailed log of changes based on the OpenBSD logs. > 3.) I am suspicious of cwm.postinst. I could look into what is required > a bit more, but let me know what you think about that. This was derived from the behaviour of various other windows managers, including blackbox, openbox and fvwm. It's in line with the DPM as well: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ap-pkg-alternatives.html Cheers, Jame
