-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu 2007-03-15 03:57:19 -0400, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> I checked the package and I think that 3.01-2 has release quality. > If you agree, I will upload it to unstable. My comments below are > quite minor and you could implement them in a future version of the > package. i've just uploaded 3.01-3 that addresses most of these issues, actually, since they're good ones. If you wouldn't mind looking over it, i'd prefer that one to be uploaded. > You might implement a "full debhelper" solution by using dh_install > and dh_links in conjunction with debian/install and debian/links > (files attached below). There is an advantage in doing this: if one > day you decide to switch to CDBS, then you could use an almost > trivial debian/rules file, like the one attached below. This is a good suggestion. i've done it, without going whole hog CDBS. i'm inclined to trust you that it's a good idea, but i'd prefer to read up more on it before i make any changes. D'you have any preferred reading material other than what ships with the cdbs package? The alioth cdbs page [0] seems to have a bunch of broken links. :/ btw, the debian/links turned out to need usr/share/man/man1/tweak.1 usr/share/man/man1/tweak-wrapper.1 instead of tweak.1 usr/share/man/man1/tweak-wrapper.1 the latter gives a broken link to /tweak.1, apparently. from man dh_link: dh_link will generate symlinks that comply with debian policy - absolute when policy says they should be absolute, and relative links with as short a path as possible. It will also create any subdirectories it needs to to put the symlinks in. so it did a proper job of stripping the leading path elements. nice when a tool does the right thing! > The variable DESTDIR is set in the command line, but does not appear > in Makefile. You might drop this. ok, i've done that. i wasn't sure if DESTDIR was a commonly expected variable that we should be providing to any Makefile on principle. > I tend to agree with the author and I hope that the ftp-master admin > will not see a problem. We could assume here a "principle of least > effort" (or whatever), meaning that if a file is lacking the > licensing terms, then the ones in LICENCE apply to it. yeah. i think the direct statement from Simon is a pretty clear message as well. Thanks again for your prompt help with this. I learn a lot from these exchanges. --dkg [0] http://build-common.alioth.debian.org/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/> iD8DBQFF+aRTiXTlFKVLY2URAmCNAJ43H43SH6OhMbEDxzzEwAt6FK95CACgqUul iXogBDg8qBA3Vb6iihZ+NKc= =up/h -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]