Re: RFS: dhcpd-pools
Asbjørn,
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 02:28:45PM +, Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen wrote:
On 06/25/2011 11:29 AM, Kilian Krause wrote:
[...]
- using dh-autoreconf feels like to wrong solution to a problem to me. Is
that really required to autoreconf? What for?
This is because I'm using git-buildpackage, and pulling upstream
through git, not release tarballs, as documented in the
git-buildpackage documentation[1].
I have the following branches in my git repository:
- master - used for Debian packaging
- upstream - upstream release I am working on (based on upstream tag)
- upstream-head - upstream's current git HEAD
I'm building with:
git-buildpackage --git-export-dir=../build --git-export=HEAD -k5238B839
sounds sane to me. Just as there is a resulting diff with the upstream
tarball that's available on the website found by debian/watch please make
sure this is documented - like README.source or so. As you are
autoreconf'ing due to your Git-link anyway, why not ask upstream to tag
releases with identical contents than the release tarball and thus push this
task upstream? Or if you see a good benefit doing this as part of your
(re-)generation of the orig.tar.gz make a get-orig-source target in
debian/rules that will do this more transparent instead of having each and
every buildd force to autoreconf during the deb building. Most often
autoreconf in the automatic build will cause very funny effects that you can
easily avoid by fixing the orig.tar.gz and then just doing the regular
configure during build time.
- debian/changelog with
Format:
http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?revision=174view=markup
is most probably too specific about which dep5 format you intended to
fulfill. Not exactly wrong just feels a bit funny. ;-)
Before the review session on IRC yesterday, I had:
Format: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5
It was pointed out that it was best practice to link to the revision:
I of my 139 installed packages that have a DEP 5 copyright file:
- 28 links to http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/
- 111 links to http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn + rev
- all dead links currently due to the websvn = viewvc change
DEP 5 uses this link as an example:
http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?op=filerev=REVISION
liblucene2-java actually uses it directly. :( (Filing bug in a moment)
I changed it to the anonscm.d.o link, because of this.
After that I have through some more about it, now that DEP 5 is
frozen I guess that, it might be better to just change it back to
the dep.d.n link again.
That was exactly my point I had in mind. Referencing
http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ will be a more static URL over time but as
I said, I'm not aware there's an official oppinion on this. So either one is
fine.
- The tarball doesn't match upsteam's - yet there's no notion of why this
difference exists:
-rw-rw-r-- 1 kk kk 51500 25. Jun 12:56 dhcpd-pools_2.15.orig.tar.gz
-rw-rw-r-- 1 kk kk 388230 25. Jun 13:04
tarballs/dhcpd-pools_2.15.orig.tar.gz
Either you seriously do a repack and alter the version number to ~dfsg (if
it's a DFSG-driven repack) or a ~debian if it's rather a cosmetic repack.
From a first glance it seems that you're working around exactly that
autoreconf issue (reintroducing what you stripped out) and eventually some
Git that you could educate upstream to leave out of the RELEASE tarball.
Please get this sorted out in a clean way so that upstream's tarball is
used unchanged if you intend to maintain your current version number as
is.
It is a purely cosmetic repack, based on upstreams release git tag.
I wouldn't mind changing the version number to include ~debian, but
in that case ~git would make more sense, as there are no debian
specific changes in the repack, but ~git might also sound more scary
than ~gittag. If ~debian is recommended/mandatory in package version
where orig.tar.gz is generated by git-buildpackage, I would expect
it to be mentioned in the git-buildpackage documentaion. If it is I
would be happy to make patch against git-buildpackage adding that.
I'm fine with either ~debian or ~git. Just don't name it identical as
upstream uses on his website without avoiding a resulting diff.
If you have a resulting contents of the tarball but md5/sha1 diff due to
repacking your own tarball from Git I'd say that's ok if it's documented in
get-orig-source and README.source. And if you autoreconf due to upstream
doesn't export the tag properly reconf'd then use ~git or +git as version
suffix.
- dpkg-gencontrol: warning: package dhcpd-pools: unused substitution
variable ${perl:Depends}
should also be fixed - i.e. make sure it finds all *.pl files and does
look at them.
Added it, the only perl file is contrib/snmptest.pl, and it doesn't
have any non standard perl dependencies. So ${perl:Depends} only
gets replaced with perl itself.
Good.
Re: RFS: dhcpd-pools
Hi Asbjørn,
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 05:57:15PM +, Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen wrote:
I have uploaded an updated package to mentors.debian.net.
Changes made based on feedback, from IRC earlier today:
Remove unnecessary comments from watch file
copyright: add direct link to current dep5 revision
copyright: add Upstream-Contact field
Rephasing changelog message
The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
- URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dhcpd-pools
- Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian
unstable main contrib non-free
- dget
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dhcpd-pools/dhcpd-pools_2.15-1.dsc
- git: http://git.asbjorn.biz/?p=debian/dhcpd-pools.git
Thanks for your work.
Here some further comments to what you may also have received on IRC:
- debian/compat is still at 7 - any reason to not make it 8? (stable and bpo
for oldstable have debhelper 8)
- using dh-autoreconf feels like to wrong solution to a problem to me. Is
that really required to autoreconf? What for?
- debian/changelog with
Format:
http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?revision=174view=markup
is most probably too specific about which dep5 format you intended to
fulfill. Not exactly wrong just feels a bit funny. ;-)
- The tarball doesn't match upsteam's - yet there's no notion of why this
difference exists:
-rw-rw-r-- 1 kk kk 51500 25. Jun 12:56 dhcpd-pools_2.15.orig.tar.gz
-rw-rw-r-- 1 kk kk 388230 25. Jun 13:04 tarballs/dhcpd-pools_2.15.orig.tar.gz
Either you seriously do a repack and alter the version number to ~dfsg (if
it's a DFSG-driven repack) or a ~debian if it's rather a cosmetic repack.
From a first glance it seems that you're working around exactly that
autoreconf issue (reintroducing what you stripped out) and eventually some
Git that you could educate upstream to leave out of the RELEASE tarball.
Please get this sorted out in a clean way so that upstream's tarball is
used unchanged if you intend to maintain your current version number as
is.
- dpkg-gencontrol: warning: package dhcpd-pools: unused substitution variable
${perl:Depends}
should also be fixed - i.e. make sure it finds all *.pl files and does
look at them.
- I: dhcpd-pools: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign
usr/share/man/man1/dhcpd-pools.1.gz:13
may also be worth fixing while we're at it
- licensecheck still reports:
./src/getopt.c: GPL (with incorrect FSF address)
./src/getopt.h: GPL (with incorrect FSF address)
./src/getopt1.c: GPL (with incorrect FSF address)
which you may want to tell upstream about.
And just for the record ltmain.sh is GPLv2 (and isn't mentioned as
exception to the all-is-GPL3 in debian/copyright)
- Spelling in debian/control should be fixed for at least:
accomodiate = accommodate
- In debian/control you first talk about ISC dhcp and later about ISC dhcpd
meaning the same thing though - the DHCP server. Please use one wording
only.
- CSV is an abbreviation that should be capitalized in the description
- Users of the command most probably means Users of this tool I guess.
--
Best Regards,
Kilian
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: dhcpd-pools
Hi Kilian,
On 06/25/2011 11:29 AM, Kilian Krause wrote:
Here some further comments to what you may also have received on IRC:
Thanks for your thorough review.
- debian/compat is still at 7 - any reason to not make it 8? (stable and bpo
for oldstable have debhelper 8)
No reason, fixed. Also bumped the build-depend on debhelper to =8.0.0
- using dh-autoreconf feels like to wrong solution to a problem to me. Is
that really required to autoreconf? What for?
This is because I'm using git-buildpackage, and pulling upstream through
git, not release tarballs, as documented in the git-buildpackage
documentation[1].
I have the following branches in my git repository:
- master - used for Debian packaging
- upstream - upstream release I am working on (based on upstream tag)
- upstream-head - upstream's current git HEAD
I'm building with:
git-buildpackage --git-export-dir=../build --git-export=HEAD -k5238B839
- debian/changelog with
Format:
http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?revision=174view=markup
is most probably too specific about which dep5 format you intended to
fulfill. Not exactly wrong just feels a bit funny. ;-)
Before the review session on IRC yesterday, I had:
Format: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5
It was pointed out that it was best practice to link to the revision:
I of my 139 installed packages that have a DEP 5 copyright file:
- 28 links to http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/
- 111 links to http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn + rev
- all dead links currently due to the websvn = viewvc change
DEP 5 uses this link as an example:
http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?op=filerev=REVISION
liblucene2-java actually uses it directly. :( (Filing bug in a moment)
I changed it to the anonscm.d.o link, because of this.
After that I have through some more about it, now that DEP 5 is frozen I
guess that, it might be better to just change it back to the dep.d.n
link again.
- The tarball doesn't match upsteam's - yet there's no notion of why this
difference exists:
-rw-rw-r-- 1 kk kk 51500 25. Jun 12:56 dhcpd-pools_2.15.orig.tar.gz
-rw-rw-r-- 1 kk kk 388230 25. Jun 13:04 tarballs/dhcpd-pools_2.15.orig.tar.gz
Either you seriously do a repack and alter the version number to ~dfsg (if
it's a DFSG-driven repack) or a ~debian if it's rather a cosmetic repack.
From a first glance it seems that you're working around exactly that
autoreconf issue (reintroducing what you stripped out) and eventually some
Git that you could educate upstream to leave out of the RELEASE tarball.
Please get this sorted out in a clean way so that upstream's tarball is
used unchanged if you intend to maintain your current version number as
is.
It is a purely cosmetic repack, based on upstreams release git tag.
I wouldn't mind changing the version number to include ~debian, but in
that case ~git would make more sense, as there are no debian specific
changes in the repack, but ~git might also sound more scary than
~gittag. If ~debian is recommended/mandatory in package version where
orig.tar.gz is generated by git-buildpackage, I would expect it to be
mentioned in the git-buildpackage documentaion. If it is I would be
happy to make patch against git-buildpackage adding that.
- dpkg-gencontrol: warning: package dhcpd-pools: unused substitution variable
${perl:Depends}
should also be fixed - i.e. make sure it finds all *.pl files and does
look at them.
Added it, the only perl file is contrib/snmptest.pl, and it doesn't have
any non standard perl dependencies. So ${perl:Depends} only gets
replaced with perl itself.
- I: dhcpd-pools: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign
usr/share/man/man1/dhcpd-pools.1.gz:13
may also be worth fixing while we're at it
I have ignored this, due to upstream having a commit[2] removing that
line, scheduled for next release. Should I backport it?
- licensecheck still reports:
./src/getopt.c: GPL (with incorrect FSF address)
./src/getopt.h: GPL (with incorrect FSF address)
./src/getopt1.c: GPL (with incorrect FSF address)
which you may want to tell upstream about.
Will submit patch upstream. Have also added them to debian/copyright as
GPL-2.0+.
I assume that contrib/snmptest.pl is GPL-3.0+.
And just for the record ltmain.sh is GPLv2 (and isn't mentioned as
exception to the all-is-GPL3 in debian/copyright)
ltmain.sh is created by autoreconf, and is distributed through that, it
is neither a part of the orig.tar.gz, debian.tar.gz nor the resulting
deb. It is through distributed in upstream release tarball.
- Spelling in debian/control should be fixed for at least:
accomodiate = accommodate
- In debian/control you first talk about ISC dhcp and later about ISC dhcpd
meaning the same thing though - the DHCP server. Please use one wording
only.
- CSV is an abbreviation that should be capitalized in the description
- Users of the command
Re: RFS: dhcpd-pools
Dear mentors, I have uploaded an updated package to mentors.debian.net. Changes made based on feedback, from IRC earlier today: Remove unnecessary comments from watch file copyright: add direct link to current dep5 revision copyright: add Upstream-Contact field Rephasing changelog message The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dhcpd-pools - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dhcpd-pools/dhcpd-pools_2.15-1.dsc - git: http://git.asbjorn.biz/?p=debian/dhcpd-pools.git -- Best regards Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen -- 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/4e04cffb.1050...@asbjorn.biz
RFS: dhcpd-pools
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package dhcpd-pools. * Package name: dhcpd-pools Version : 2.15-1 Upstream Author : Sami Kerola kerol...@iki.fi * URL : http://dhcpd-pools.sourceforge.net/ * License : GPL-3.0+ Section : net It builds these binary packages: dhcpd-pools - ISC dhcpd lease analysis and reporting The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 631229 My motivation for maintaining this package is: I have a client that needed this package, and I believe that it is generic enough that it should available in main. It is a good candidate for my first official Debian package, due to its simplicity (pure autoreconf, and currently no additional patches). The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dhcpd-pools - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dhcpd-pools/dhcpd-pools_2.15-1.dsc - git: http://git.asbjorn.biz/?p=debian/dhcpd-pools.git I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. $ git diff --stat upstream...master debian/changelog |5 + debian/compat |1 + debian/control| 21 + debian/copyright | 29 + debian/docs |4 debian/rules |8 debian/source/format |1 + debian/watch | 23 +++ 8 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) -- Kind regards Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen -- 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/4e024317.4010...@asbjorn.biz
