Hi Lucas, Hi d-mentors (there's a workflow question below), On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 at 05:16:54PM -0300, Lucas Castro wrote: > The source builds the following binary packages: > > foolsm - Link connectivity monitor tool > lsm - Link connectivity monitor tool - transitional package > > To access further information about this package, please visit the following > URL: > > https://mentors.debian.net/package/lsm/ > > Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: > > dget -xhttps://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/lsm/lsm_1.0.21-1.dsc
I like using git since it makes dsc review easier. I've converted the upstream tarball history and your uploads to git using gbp and put them here: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/lsm If you don't want to use git that's fine it's just a convinience for the me or the next DD to sponsor lsm but I'd be happy to help you figure out the Debian git workflow if you want. Package Review -------------- d/changelog: > lsm (1.0.21-1) unstable; urgency=medium > . > * New upstream release (Closes: #1041221) > * Usrmerge compliance (Closes: #1054086) Could be more specific. "Use dh_installsystemd to install units" maybe? > * Package rename Use imperative in changelogs and be more specific: "Rename package to 'foolsm' to stay consistent with upstream" or some such. > - Added transitional package for renaming process More specific please. I'd go with straight prose and not bullet-points myself. Say: "The old 'lsm' package is now transitional and installs the new 'foolsm' package. > - Debian package was modified after upstream project rename. I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me here? > * debian/watch updated > * debian/patches/ cleaned out IMO these are implied. Ofc. we're going to do that when we update a package in Debian so while these would make good git commits I don't think they should be in d/changelog since that's mostly user-facing. Maybe that's just my git sensibilities showing and it's perfectly appropriate to note this in d/changelog for the old dsc focused workflow? Feel free to rebuttle this point. d/copyright: > Files: * > Copyright: 2009-2016 Mika Ilmaranta <il...@nullnet.fi> > 2009-2015 Tuomo Soini <t...@foobar.fi> licensecheck finds newer copyright dates, some ftp reviewers like to be pedantic here and since we'll make a trip through NEW its best to be exact here, should be: Copyright: 2009-2019 Mika Ilmaranta <il...@nullnet.fi> 2009-2021 Tuomo Soini <t...@foobar.fi> d/rules: > DEBUG=true I'm not sure how to feel about this. Do you have a reason for turning it on? Seems the last upload had it commented out. From a quick codereivew it does look to just add more logging, so it's probably fine? Looking at the generated maintainerscripts in the foolsm deb I don't see anything related to dpkg-maintscript-helper, are you sure that's hooked up right? Good job finding that obscurica BTW I didn't know about that myself :) man says: > When using a packaging helper, please check if it has native > dpkg-maintscript-helper integration, which might make your life > easier. See for example dh_installdeb(1). Hmm. I do see: $ cat debian/lsm.preinst.debhelper # Automatically added by dh_installdeb/13.11.4 dpkg-maintscript-helper mv_conffile /etc/lsm/lsm.config /etc/foolsm/foolsm.conf 1.0.21\~ -- "$@" # End automatically added section but that somehow doesn't seem to make it into the deb. Oh. The lsm.maintscript probably has to be called s/lsm/foolsm/ for it to work. Random notes: I also noticed the upstream tarballs have started including a debian/ directory for a non-native packaging. Do you know what's up with that? I could see why they would include it if they packaged it as a "native" package but for non-native it just makes no sense. Could you talk to upstream to figure out what's up with that? Feel free to CC me. Just FYI: I'd appreciate git commits/patches on top of my repo above instead of an updated dsc dump. Thanks, --Daniel
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature