Hi Raphael, Thanks a lot for the review.
> Here when I review 7a7b6fa57981a1ff081c5ec0579ce65191162c82 I don't want > to see so many changes on debian/asciidoc.install. I want only the vim > line dropped and see it added in the new package. Sorry about that. I'm not able to split that commit as I can't push with --force, so is it ok for this time? I'll try to be more careful in the future. > Now reviewing the split (c93478fd9be3ad2f9841df973eb7b09d312bd699) I did > not check in details the files repartition but I noticed this: > * epubcheck is in suggests everywhere but I guess it's not usefull for all > backends, it probably makes sense only in asciidoc-base. Well, epubcheck makes sense on the packages that can actually generate epubs which are asciidoc-dblatex and asciidoc-fop. I'll remove it from asciidoc as it depends on asciidoc-dblatex. I don't think it needs to be on asciidoc-base as it is not able to generate any epub format without fop or dblatex. > * source-highlight is also mentionned everywhere but since ascidoc-base is > required, it's enough to be on that package. Right. Sorry for that. removing it from everywhere else than asciidoc-base. > * When you split packages in a fine-grained level, you should move the > optional "Recommends" into a required "Depends". asciidoc-fop without > fop doesn't make sense, thus fop and docbook-utils should be Depends > and not Recommends. Same with "dblatex" and docbook-utils in > asciidoc-dblatex. Good point. Changed that. I left xmlto in the recommends as you can generate man pages without xmlto if you use -L / --no-xmllint (This package brings dblatex, so sometimes you just want to have a way to have asciidoc without it). The add of this package to recommends was discussed in #692274. > Looking at your clean target in debian/rules, you can replace it entirely > with a "debian/clean" file (that said I wonder why some of those "rm" are > there, what creates debian/asciidoc.1.xml, etc?). Moved them to a debian/clean file. Those file are created by the call to a2x -f manpage calls from the Makefile(.in) if I recall correctly. > Last detail, lintian reports this informational tag (on all binary packages): > I: asciidoc-fop: debian-news-entry-uses-asterisk > N: > N: The latest entry in NEWS.Debian appears to use asterisks to present > N: changes in a bulleted list, similar to the normal changelog syntax. > N: The Debian Developer's Reference recommends using regular paragraphs > N: in NEWS.Debian rather than a bulleted list. > N: > N: Refer to Debian Developer's Reference section 6.3.4 (Supplementing > N: changelogs with NEWS.Debian files) for details. > N: > N: Severity: wishlist, Certainty: possible > N: > N: Check: changelog-file, Type: binary > N: > > Can you clean up those little details quickly? Done. I also got rid of the following other lintian info messages: vcs-field-not-canonical, vcs-field-uses-insecure-uri and duplicate-short-description. > How long have you been using your updated packages already? I used the -base version for about 8 months and then I reinstalled my computer so I took the package from the distro. I pushed the changing to the git repo and to mentors. Thanks Joseph
