Hi Stephen, On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 10:05:16PM -0400, Stephen Smith wrote: > Hopefully, yes! I have tracked down as best I can, all the authors of > the original JEBL and the LGPL version that it was under. These have > been added to the copyright.
Looks good to me. > The removal of the dep of jebl2 was pushed > and the adding of the bug number was done. So, I think that is it? Nearly. I stumbled upon the manpage where help2man did a bad job. Due to a bug it did a repeated output (which I deleted). You should also always call help2man with '--no-info' option since otherwise it appends a paragraph which directs to a texinfo manual which usually never exists. Help2man was also unable to detect the proper name of the program and in the NAME section it added "don't" as name. This is fixed. I did some more syntactical fixes since I could imagine that you might not be that used to manpage editing. As a hint for editing manpages: I'm usually using mc (MidnightCommander) and when pressing F3 on a manpage it is rendered like with man - so you can quickly check your edits. So far for the syntactical things in the manpage, but there is some missing content. The DESCRIPTION section is somehow suboptimal and you are refering to "the documentation" - but where is this. At least not in the package and thus a link would be helpful. Please also provide a simple example since I'm not sure whether I've got the SYNOPSIS correct (please also check this). The goal of the manpage should be to provide some quick entry for users or some reminder how to use it after having read the extensive docs without forcing them to reread the docs over and over. > Let > me know if there are additional things that need to be done or other > testing that I should do. If the manpage is fixed I will upload the package. If you are unsure about the syntax please just inject the content and remind me to check again. For future upstream versions I would like you to consider two things: 1. It might make sense to rely on the maintained jebl2 instead of maintaining a private jebl (otherwise I's recommend to explain your reasons for sticking to jebl in some README to let others understand. 2. We try to provide unit tests as much as possible (see the current discussion about reproducible science on the Debian Med mailing list). These could be run at package build time and also later using autopkgtest in an automated process. So if you could provide such tests this would be really great (independently from the Debian packaging for sure to let others profit from it as well) Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140321074810.gc18...@an3as.eu