Getting QtWebChannel ready for upload
Hey, first of all - I spoke yesterday with Scarlett, because she started the packaging and I don't want to take over here work. Currently she is very busy but whats to take over again if the work gets less. But till than she's happy if we go on and get the package rolling... now all points I see, that need to address before we can upload the qtwebchannel: * X: libqt5webchannel-dev: duplicate-files usr/share/doc/libqt5webchannel-dev/ examples/webchannel/chatclient-html/qwebchannel.js usr/share/doc/ libqt5webchannel-dev/examples/webchannel/nodejs/qwebchannel.js usr/share/doc/ libqt5webchannel-dev/examples/webchannel/qwclient/qwebchannel.js -> either link all duplicates at one or we just leave it because the examples should be self contained? P: libqt5webchannel-dev: example-unusual-interpreter usr/share/doc/ libqt5webchannel-dev/examples/webchannel/qwclient/qwclient.js #!node -> the interpreter is okay in the source file so who is changing this this. If I look at the file I see a correct interpreter: #!/usr/bin/env node * I had another licensecheck and I found smaller issues (already fixed). * build the qtwebchannel-doc package (I would not create a -doc and -doc-html package and ship everything at the -doc package) * move examples to doc package? I think there they match better * I would remove the patch examples_full_path.diff, because it only touches examples and there the privacy breach to not hold in my eyes - What do you think? *we should build&ran tests from the test directory. debian/control - update the descriptions, these are not matching to QtWebChannel and copied around from other places ( I'm not a native English speaker) - add the doc package That's all I see, that need to be done/ discussed before the package is ready for upload. @lisandro: anything to add to the list? Any Qt5 specific things? Best regards, sandro signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk
Re: Getting QtWebChannel ready for upload
CCing pkg-kde-talk which should be the right place for this. On miércoles, 27 de julio de 2016 12:16:17 A. M. ART Sandro Knauß wrote: > Hey, > > first of all - I spoke yesterday with Scarlett, because she started the > packaging and I don't want to take over here work. Currently she is very > busy but whats to take over again if the work gets less. But till than > she's happy if we go on and get the package rolling... ACK! > now all points I see, that need to address before we can upload the > qtwebchannel: > * X: libqt5webchannel-dev: duplicate-files > usr/share/doc/libqt5webchannel-dev/ > examples/webchannel/chatclient-html/qwebchannel.js usr/share/doc/ > libqt5webchannel-dev/examples/webchannel/nodejs/qwebchannel.js > usr/share/doc/ > libqt5webchannel-dev/examples/webchannel/qwclient/qwebchannel.js > > -> either link all duplicates at one or we just leave it because the > examples should be self contained? - Examples should not be part of a -dev package. - Linking them, as long as they are in the same package, should be ok. It's simply to do too. > P: libqt5webchannel-dev: example-unusual-interpreter usr/share/doc/ > libqt5webchannel-dev/examples/webchannel/qwclient/qwclient.js #!node > > -> the interpreter is okay in the source file so who is changing this this. > If I look at the file I see a correct interpreter: > #!/usr/bin/env node I don't have the least idea :( > * I had another licensecheck and I found smaller issues (already fixed). ACK. > * build the qtwebchannel-doc package (I would not create a -doc and > -doc-html package and ship everything at the -doc package) Why not? That means: - forcing the user to install the same doc twice, one in each format. - we can't later add the relevant dependencies to qtdoc-opensource-src > * move examples to doc package? I think there they match better Examples should go in an examples package. Check other Qt submodules for examples on how to ship examples ;) > * I would remove the patch examples_full_path.diff, because it only touches > examples and there the privacy breach to not hold in my eyes - What do you > think? I think it's a privacy breach non the less which is quite easy to fix. Extra points if a proper patch for doing this at build time is upstreamed. By the way, that patch needs the necessary headers, check http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/ > debian/control > - update the descriptions, these are not matching to QtWebChannel and > copied around from other places ( I'm not a native English speaker) Right, those need an update. > - add the doc package > > That's all I see, that need to be done/ discussed before the package is > ready for upload. > > @lisandro: anything to add to the list? Any Qt5 specific things? Some thoughts about the packging: - debian/changelog: * this is pedant, but it should really only list the inital package release with the proper close to the ITP. This is the first time it is uploaded so you don't really need to describe anything else. * Whoever did the initial packaging didn't follow the changelog guidelines [cg]. Please take a look at them and be sure to follow them. Ask if in doubt. [cg] http://pkg-kde.alioth.debian.org/changelogstandard.html - debian/control: * Maintainer should be the Qt/KDE team. * Scarlett, Sandro and Simon should be listed in Uploaders, they are the ones doing the job after all :) - debian/copyright * $QT_BEGIN_LICENSE:LGPL21$ ← this is not OK, it's just a template used by upstream. * Please check other submodule sto see how this is handled. Ask if in doubt. * Copyright lines are not machine parseable, see http://dep.debian.net/deps/ dep5/ - debian/.directory really? - debian/docs: it's empty, remove it. - debian/libqt5webchannel-dev.install * usr/lib/*/qt5/examples/webchannel/ /usr/share/doc/libqt5webchannel-dev/ examples ← examples should go in it's proper package. - debian/not-installed: our Qt not-written policy is to remove the files not being shipped with a commad in debian/rules, using rm -fv. We keep the v to be sure we know which files are being removed just by looking at the build log. We might revisit that policy, as I think not-installed is now supported by the necessary tools. Can anyone update me on this? - debian/patches: already reviewed above. - debian/rules: * qmake will not take those flags. And if it did that would be a problem, as hardening enables -fPIE but we require -fPIC (which already implies -fPIE, but you can't use both at the same time). * qmake QT_BUILD_PARTS+=" src" ← why that? * make install INSTALL_ROOT=$(CURDIR)/debian/tmp ← why not using dh_auto_install? check for example qtsensors. * Missing -v in first and last rm call. - debian/.gitattributes is missing, use qtbase's one as an example. -- #exclude Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. --
Re: Getting QtWebChannel ready for upload
Greetings, >> first of all - I spoke yesterday with Scarlett, because she started the >> packaging and I don't want to take over here work. Currently she is very >> busy but whats to take over again if the work gets less. But till than >> she's happy if we go on and get the package rolling... > > ACK! Well that's good. :) > - Examples should not be part of a -dev package. I'll make sure to add this in the -doc package I'm working on. See below. > - Linking them, as long as they are in the same package, should be ok. It's > simply to do too. I'm unfamiliar with how this would be done, and I'm curious how. debian/patches ? >> P: libqt5webchannel-dev: example-unusual-interpreter usr/share/doc/ >> libqt5webchannel-dev/examples/webchannel/qwclient/qwclient.js #!node >> >> -> the interpreter is okay in the source file so who is changing this this. >> If I look at the file I see a correct interpreter: >> #!/usr/bin/env node So Sandro, this means it's fixed? If not, I have no clue either. >> * I had another licensecheck and I found smaller issues (already fixed). > > ACK. \o/ >> * build the qtwebchannel-doc package (I would not create a -doc and >> -doc-html package and ship everything at the -doc package) > > Why not? That means: > > - forcing the user to install the same doc twice, one in each format. > - we can't later add the relevant dependencies to qtdoc-opensource-src I've taken on getting the -doc* package squared away. I'll start by getting the -doc package good to go, then I'll see what makes sense to split. I'll let you all know on this. > Examples should go in an examples package. Check other Qt submodules for > examples on how to ship examples ;) I'll pick this up too because it's sort of under the -docs umbrella. > Some thoughts about the packging: > > - debian/changelog: > * this is pedant, but it should really only list the inital package release > with the proper close to the ITP. This is the first time it is uploaded so > you > don't really need to describe anything else. > * Whoever did the initial packaging didn't follow the changelog guidelines > [cg]. Please take a look at them and be sure to follow them. Ask if in > doubt. > > [cg] http://pkg-kde.alioth.debian.org/changelogstandard.html This seems easy to fix so I'll knock it out ASAP. > - debian/control: > * Maintainer should be the Qt/KDE team. > * Scarlett, Sandro and Simon should be listed in Uploaders, they are the > ones doing the job after all :) How does being in Uploaders work? Does that mean we've touched the package? Does that mean we have upload rights to this package? I've never used this before. > - debian/copyright > * $QT_BEGIN_LICENSE:LGPL21$ ← this is not OK, it's just a template used by > upstream. > * Please check other submodule sto see how this is handled. Ask if in doubt. > * Copyright lines are not machine parseable, see http://dep.debian.net/deps/ > dep5/ About copyright. In my branch, I added myself to the copyright file for the debian/ directory, and I propose that the people in that entry should be me, Scarlett, and Sandro. Thoughts? > - debian/.directory really? What is this? > - debian/docs: it's empty, remove it. I'll do this in my branch right after sending this email. > - debian/libqt5webchannel-dev.install > * usr/lib/*/qt5/examples/webchannel/ /usr/share/doc/libqt5webchannel-dev/ > examples ← examples should go in it's proper package. Again, my task, I'll handle the install files. > - debian/.gitattributes is missing, use qtbase's one as an example. Also seems easy, coming soon. In the future, when I refer to my branch/repo, it's hosted here: https://git.launchpad.net/~tsimonq2/+git/qtwebchannel . Please always pull from that. Nice work everyone! :) -- Simon Quigley tsimo...@ubuntu.com tsimonq2 on Freenode, OFTC -- http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk
Re: Getting QtWebChannel ready for upload
On martes, 26 de julio de 2016 7:33:54 P. M. ART Simon Quigley wrote: [snip] > > - Linking them, as long as they are in the same package, should be ok. > > It's > > simply to do too. > > I'm unfamiliar with how this would be done, and I'm curious how. > > debian/patches ? rm all except one, use debian/.links [snip] > How does being in Uploaders work? Does that mean we've touched the > package? Does that mean we have upload rights to this package? I've > never used this before. Normally it's up to the original packager/team, but in this case you are the three ones working on this and none of us regular Qt maintainers, so... [snip] > About copyright. > > In my branch, I added myself to the copyright file for the debian/ > directory, and I propose that the people in that entry should be me, > Scarlett, and Sandro. Thoughts? You did exactly the right thing. > > - debian/.directory really? > > What is this? Good question :) A Plasma/dolphin file that should have never been there :) [snip] > In the future, when I refer to my branch/repo, it's hosted here: > https://git.launchpad.net/~tsimonq2/+git/qtwebchannel . Please always > pull from that. Keep up the good work and it won't be long before any of us gives you commit access :) -- "No es el crecimiento de la tecnología lo que excluye, sino la protección sistemática de los derechos de uso de la misma, lo cual se puede aplicar al arte." David Cuartielles Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk
Re: Getting QtWebChannel ready for upload
Hey, Maybe we should use gobby for our uptodate TODO list (install the package named gobby). I used now gobby.debian.org/Teams/KDE/qtwebengine. I think than we will follow the normal qt package rules and create a example, doc and doc-html packages to be consistant. My answers about merging things together was based without looking to other qt packages ( sorry for that) >>* I would remove the patch examples_full_path.diff, because it only touches >> examples and there the privacy breach to not hold in my eyes - What do you >> think? >I think it's a privacy breach non the less which is quite easy to fix. Extra points if a proper patch for doing this at build time is upstreamed. Well the patch with linking to a Debian copy of jQuery can break the example, if the version is not exactly the same they depend on. And the example wants 1.4.2 and debian has 1.2.0. I know from packaging webapps based on jQuery, that jQuery change their API often and thats why many packages in Debian store a internal copy of the version of jQuery they need. (I know this is not the way to go). That's why I recommend to don't link to the internal jQuery, because broken example are really bad and more a problem than the privacy beach. And it is a matter of fact, that the examples are used not very often, so we will see the error much later :( But lisandro is right, never the less all the errors are valid privacy beaches, so we should not override them in lintian and keep the warnings as reminders, that we should fix them in future. > examples_full_path.diff if we keep the patch, than we should also add dep3 headers, yes. > - debian/rules: > * qmake will not take those flags. And if it did that would be a problem, as > hardening enables -fPIE but we require -fPIC (which already implies -fPIE, but you can't use both at the same time). already removed again > * qmake QT_BUILD_PARTS+=" src" ← why that? will try if it is necessary >* make install INSTALL_ROOT=$(CURDIR)/debian/tmp ← why not using dh_auto_install? check for example qtsensors. fixed already > * Missing -v in first and last rm call. will add this. > > > - debian/.directory really? > Good question :) A Plasma/dolphin file that should have never been there :) should be deleted. I overseen the file, because it is hidden :D > [snip] > > > In the future, when I refer to my branch/repo, it's hosted here: > > https://git.launchpad.net/~tsimonq2/+git/qtwebchannel . Please always > > pull from that. > > Keep up the good work and it won't be long before any of us gives you commit > access :) +1 > >> P: libqt5webchannel-dev: example-unusual-interpreter usr/share/doc/ > >> libqt5webchannel-dev/examples/webchannel/qwclient/qwclient.js #!node > So Sandro, this means it's fixed? If not, I have no clue either. no I just looked what interpreter is set in the source file and this one is a correct one, so it is a debian tool changing the interpreter. So someone needs to investigate this. Regards, sandroy signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk
Re: Getting QtWebChannel ready for upload
Hi Sandro, On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 01:49:33AM +0200, Sandro Knauß wrote: > P: libqt5webchannel-dev: example-unusual-interpreter usr/share/doc/ > libqt5webchannel-dev/examples/webchannel/qwclient/qwclient.js #!node > > -> the interpreter is okay in the source file so who is changing this this. > If > I look at the file I see a correct interpreter: > #!/usr/bin/env node On Debian this should be nodejs rather that node (see #614907). -- Dmitry Shachnev signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk
Re: Getting QtWebChannel ready for upload
Hey Dmitry, > On Debian this should be nodejs rather that node (see #614907). Oh thanks for this notice. But changing the node -> nodejs results now in another lintian warning: W: qtwebchannel-examples: script-not-executable usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/qt5/ examples/webchannel/qwclient/qwclient.js the env line is: #/usr/bin/env nodejs regards, sandro signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk
Re: Getting QtWebChannel ready for upload
Hi Sandro, On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 12:36:20PM +0200, Sandro Knauß wrote: > > On Debian this should be nodejs rather that node (see #614907). > > Oh thanks for this notice. But changing the node -> nodejs results now in > another lintian warning: > W: qtwebchannel-examples: script-not-executable usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/qt5/ > examples/webchannel/qwclient/qwclient.js > > the env line is: > #/usr/bin/env nodejs Strange, that file is executable in upstream tarball, and qmake seems to generate the correct command in Makefile too. Maybe you can check where the executable bit gets lots? -- Dmitry Shachnev signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk
Re: Getting QtWebChannel ready for upload
[snip] > Use of the machine readable copyright format is entirely optional. It's > encouraged, thus the lintian check, but it's not a problem if it's not > machine readable. I must admit I tend to forget this because I prefer structured things, but this is of course totally right. -- Una vez que hemos eliminado lo imposible, lo que queda, por improbable que parezca, es la verdad. Sherlock Holmes Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk
Re: Getting QtWebChannel ready for upload
On jueves, 28 de julio de 2016 6:43:00 P. M. ART Dmitry Shachnev wrote: > Hi Sandro, > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 12:36:20PM +0200, Sandro Knauß wrote: > > > On Debian this should be nodejs rather that node (see #614907). > > > > Oh thanks for this notice. But changing the node -> nodejs results now in > > another lintian warning: > > W: qtwebchannel-examples: script-not-executable > > usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/qt5/ examples/webchannel/qwclient/qwclient.js > > > > the env line is: > > #/usr/bin/env nodejs > > Strange, that file is executable in upstream tarball, and qmake seems to > generate the correct command in Makefile too. > > Maybe you can check where the executable bit gets lots? dh_fixperms most probably due to them being in a non-standard path. -- Only wimps use tape backup: real men just upload their important stuff on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it ;) Linus Benedict Torvalds. Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk
