Bug#658235: RFS: libjreen, the xmpp library (3rd try, 2 months later)
Dear Benoît, I'm very thankful for your package review. I've just fixed most of the things you mentioned. However, there're a couple of moments I'm unsure. I: libjreen1: no-symbols-control-file usr/lib/libjreen.so.1.0.1 There was a long C++ vs symbols discussion[1] recently with pros and contras. I suppose, that symbols really doesn't make sense for C++ and too hard to maintain (just to create the appropriate symbols file, I have to somehow upload the package with initial .symbols version, wait for build fails everywhere, collect buildd logs, and only there I'll be able to create real .symbols file). For example, dpkg-gensymbols generates 1633 lines of .symbols for this library. Are you sure that it's really needed? The dh_auto_install override could also be replaced by using debian/package.install files (see dh_install(1) for details). I'm unsure that .install is better solution. The one of mine should work in most cases, even if one change library and package names, I'll have to change only a package name in dh_auto_install override. In the case of .install files there would be more work. Am I right? I've uploaded new version to mentors[2], if you agree with my comments above, could you review and probably sponsor the fixed version, please? [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/01/thrd2.html#00671 [2] http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libj/libjreen/libjreen_1.0.1-1.dsc Best wishes and have a nice day, Vsevolod Velichko 2012/2/20 Benoît Knecht benoit.kne...@fsfe.org: Hi Vsevolod, Vsevolod Velichko wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package libjreen (and do this for the 3rd time, because I've got no answer, neither positive nor negative since November 2011). * Package name : libjreen Version : 1.0.1-1 Upstream Author : Ruslan Nigmatullin euroeles...@yandex.ru * URL : http://qutim.org/jreen * License : GPL2+ Section : libs It builds those binary packages: libjreen-dev - powerful Jabber/XMPP library - development files libjreen1 - powerful Jabber/XMPP library implemented in Qt/C++ I took a look at your package, here are a few things you may want to look into: - Some warnings from lintian: I: libjreen source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field section in package libjreen1 P: libjreen source: unversioned-copyright-format-uri http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5 I: libjreen1: no-symbols-control-file usr/lib/libjreen.so.1.0.1 - In debian/control, your long description repeats the synopsis, and it doesn't consist of full sentences. See [1] for guidelines about writing good descriptions. [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-pkg-desc If you're not using a VCS, you should remove those commented-out lines. - In debian/rules, the dh_installchangelogs override isn't needed; debhelper will pick up the upstream changelog automatically. The dh_auto_install override could also be replaced by using debian/package.install files (see dh_install(1) for details). - In debian/copyright, you should use the predefined short names for licenses; what you call MIT/X11 (BSD Like) is the Expat license. And even though it's more cosmetic than anything, GPL-2.0+ could be replaced by GPL-2+. I'm also not sure your debian/README.source is particularly relevant. First of all, one _should_ care about that copyright in Debian since those files are shipped in the source package (so clauses about distribution of those files certainly apply). If you want to say that the binary package doesn't contain any code from these files, perhaps a Comment in the relevant File paragraph in debian/copyright would be better (as this file is actually installed along with the binary package). I've built your package, but I haven't installed and tested it, so I cannot comment on that. Cheers, -- Benoît Knecht -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caatb-vrurpbwmyrmwku-165qgo6epnq36gf9tg7nexummw6...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#658235: RFS: libjreen, the xmpp library (3rd try, 2 months later)
Vsevolod Velichko wrote: I'm very thankful for your package review. I've just fixed most of the things you mentioned. However, there're a couple of moments I'm unsure. I: libjreen1: no-symbols-control-file usr/lib/libjreen.so.1.0.1 There was a long C++ vs symbols discussion[1] recently with pros and contras. I suppose, that symbols really doesn't make sense for C++ and too hard to maintain (just to create the appropriate symbols file, I have to somehow upload the package with initial .symbols version, wait for build fails everywhere, collect buildd logs, and only there I'll be able to create real .symbols file). For example, dpkg-gensymbols generates 1633 lines of .symbols for this library. Are you sure that it's really needed? I was merely reporting the lintian output, in case you hadn't seen it (people often run it without any additional flags and miss some relevant warnings); but the severity of this particular tag is 'wishlist', so you can ignore it if it doesn't make sense in your case. The dh_auto_install override could also be replaced by using debian/package.install files (see dh_install(1) for details). I'm unsure that .install is better solution. The one of mine should work in most cases, even if one change library and package names, I'll have to change only a package name in dh_auto_install override. In the case of .install files there would be more work. Am I right? Well it just seems awfully convoluted for just moving two files; with wildcards, you could achieve the same thing with just one line in libjreen1.install (I'm not sure why you worry about library or package name changes, that shouldn't happen too often, right?) But of course your solution is not wrong, and it's ultimately your decision what to do; I just find it more complex than necessary. I've uploaded new version to mentors[2], if you agree with my comments above, could you review and probably sponsor the fixed version, please? Hmm, I thought it was clear from my email address, but I guess it's not; I'm not a DD, so I can't sponsor your package. I'm just trying to help out however I can, by reviewing other people's packages. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/01/thrd2.html#00671 [2] http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libj/libjreen/libjreen_1.0.1-1.dsc Cheers, -- Benoît Knecht -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120221215553.gb1...@marvin.lan
Bug#658235: RFS: libjreen, the xmpp library (3rd try, 2 months later)
Hi Vsevolod, Vsevolod Velichko wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package libjreen (and do this for the 3rd time, because I've got no answer, neither positive nor negative since November 2011). * Package name: libjreen Version : 1.0.1-1 Upstream Author : Ruslan Nigmatullin euroeles...@yandex.ru * URL : http://qutim.org/jreen * License : GPL2+ Section : libs It builds those binary packages: libjreen-dev - powerful Jabber/XMPP library - development files libjreen1 - powerful Jabber/XMPP library implemented in Qt/C++ I took a look at your package, here are a few things you may want to look into: - Some warnings from lintian: I: libjreen source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field section in package libjreen1 P: libjreen source: unversioned-copyright-format-uri http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5 I: libjreen1: no-symbols-control-file usr/lib/libjreen.so.1.0.1 - In debian/control, your long description repeats the synopsis, and it doesn't consist of full sentences. See [1] for guidelines about writing good descriptions. [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-pkg-desc If you're not using a VCS, you should remove those commented-out lines. - In debian/rules, the dh_installchangelogs override isn't needed; debhelper will pick up the upstream changelog automatically. The dh_auto_install override could also be replaced by using debian/package.install files (see dh_install(1) for details). - In debian/copyright, you should use the predefined short names for licenses; what you call MIT/X11 (BSD Like) is the Expat license. And even though it's more cosmetic than anything, GPL-2.0+ could be replaced by GPL-2+. I'm also not sure your debian/README.source is particularly relevant. First of all, one _should_ care about that copyright in Debian since those files are shipped in the source package (so clauses about distribution of those files certainly apply). If you want to say that the binary package doesn't contain any code from these files, perhaps a Comment in the relevant File paragraph in debian/copyright would be better (as this file is actually installed along with the binary package). I've built your package, but I haven't installed and tested it, so I cannot comment on that. Cheers, -- Benoît Knecht -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120220155741.gb26...@marvin.lan
