Le 21/11/2014 13:31, Thomas Calderon a écrit : > I submitted an ITP (#770296) and an RFS (#770449) request regarding the > packaging of Caml Crush. > [...]
First remarks: 1. There is a "debian" directory in the upstream tarball, is that intentional? Keep in mind that is is ignored in favour of the one in .debian.tar.xz; the two agree for now, but this might change in the future. 2. Shouldn't the SOs of caml-crush-clients be installed in their own directory? Have you compared with existing PKCS#11 providers? Moreover, this might remove the need for Lintian overrides. 3. Consider the "Account Naming" section of [1]. 4. Why do you enumerate architectures instead of using "Architecture: any"? Is the lack of arm64 on purpose? 5. I am suspicious about the package not using dh-ocaml. Especially on bytecode architectures. [1] https://wiki.debian.org/AccountHandlingInMaintainerScripts Cheers, -- Stéphane -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5473644d.1080...@debian.org
