Hi Andreas, Sorry I could not take care of that earlier, being in the middile of my writing-up too.
On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 11:15 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi Ghislain, > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 05:48:35PM +0100, Ghislain Vaillant wrote: > > Hi Andreas, I have updated the package following your comments. > > > > http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=debian-science/packages/nfft.git > > I'm afraid I have some further remarks: > sure > d/control: > - Thanks to Scott's explanation I think I understood now the dh-exec > mechanism and so I think you can remove dh-exec from the > Build-Depends make sense, I dropped it. > - Priorities: The source package should be "Priority: optional" and > only for the *-dbg package you should explicitly specify > "Priority: extra". The point is that priority extra packages will > be excluded from some QA checks which we do not really want in > general but actually debug packages should feature this "extra" fixed > - Neat tip: You might like to check, how config modell using > cme fix dpkg-control > is formating your control file. I personally like this. > not quite sure what you meant here. I did run "cme fix dpkg-control" and did not return anything, nor did it change the copyright file. no further action taken. > d/changelog: > You created a new changelog paragraph. For not yet uploaded packages > this is at best confusiing even if your *-1 entry claims that it was > uploaded to unstable (which it was not - at best this should be > "UNRELEASED"). Also the consequence of this new entry is, that the > ITP bug is not closed by an upload if I would upload as is. You can > easily verify this effect when looking at the tasks page[1] which is > not linking to an according WNPP bug (in contrast to for instance > liblevmar-dev). The reason is that only the latest paragraph of > d/changelog is parsed. fare enough. I modified the changelog file to reflect on this. > > So my advise would be to *not* log your actual changes inside > d/changelog until we have *really* the first version inside Debian. > There is sufficient information inside the Git commit logs. Just > remove the 3.2.3-2 paragraph and it also makes sense to "target" > with 3.2.3-1 at UNRELEASED while leaving me as the sponsor the > task to switch this to unstable once I decide to upload. This > is (should be??) written in Debian Science policy document and > helps other team members to see immediately that a package was not > yet uploaded. don't remember reading anything about that in the policy. documentation about packaging is so scattered and not particularly readable for a "new comer" like me that I can't be 100\% sure. if I were not that curious and keen to contribute I would have probably given up already. > > > Regarding the SoB sponsering I told you I have added the *-dev package > to the relevant development tasks of Debian Science which can be seen > for example in mathematics-dev task[1]. not sure I understand what that means, it's probably more relevant to your side as a mentor I guess. > > Could you now please add an according entry at the SoB Wiki page[2] to > make sure you understood the mechanism I would like to push via SoB. > Done. > Kind regards > > Andreas. > > [1] http://blends.alioth.debian.org/science/tasks/mathematics-dev#libnfft3-dev > [2] https://wiki.debian.org/DebianPureBlends/SoB > > -- > http://fam-tille.de > > Once again thanks for your patience and verbose explanation about the process, Andreas. Ghislain -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1382918192.1299.10.camel@LAT643
