Re: Review of gnome-gmail
Thanks for the review, and the sponsorship offer. I'll work the issues, and continue this offline when it's ready. On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Michael Tautschnig m...@debian.org wrote: Hi Niels, hi list, [...] Thanks for your interest in Debian. It looks like you have not received any feedback on nor found a sponsor for your package yet. I have spent some time reviewing your package and got a few comments for you, which I hope you find useful. Please note that I am not a Debian Developer (DD), so I cannot sponsor your package even if you address all my comments/remarks. Also neither python nor GNOME is my strong suit, so there are possibly some python/GNOME specific things that I have missed in my review. I think this is a prime example of how things could work, ideally. There is absolutely no need for reviews to be only done by DDs! In fact, I think there already was a proposal (I couldn't dig it up in a brief search, though) that for each RFS people should do a review of someone else's RFS/package. Again, no need to be a DD to do this. All you need a DD for is *sponsoring*. Surely any sponsor will not upload the package without doing another brief review, but this one will really take a lot less time. [...] (very detailed and hopefully helpful review) @David: Once all the issues reported by Niels are fixed, I'd offer to do the sponsoring. Please ping me via private mail, should I miss your email to the list. Best regards, Michael
Re: Review of gnome-gmail
Hi Niels, hi list, [...] Thanks for your interest in Debian. It looks like you have not received any feedback on nor found a sponsor for your package yet. I have spent some time reviewing your package and got a few comments for you, which I hope you find useful. Please note that I am not a Debian Developer (DD), so I cannot sponsor your package even if you address all my comments/remarks. Also neither python nor GNOME is my strong suit, so there are possibly some python/GNOME specific things that I have missed in my review. I think this is a prime example of how things could work, ideally. There is absolutely no need for reviews to be only done by DDs! In fact, I think there already was a proposal (I couldn't dig it up in a brief search, though) that for each RFS people should do a review of someone else's RFS/package. Again, no need to be a DD to do this. All you need a DD for is *sponsoring*. Surely any sponsor will not upload the package without doing another brief review, but this one will really take a lot less time. [...] (very detailed and hopefully helpful review) @David: Once all the issues reported by Niels are fixed, I'd offer to do the sponsoring. Please ping me via private mail, should I miss your email to the list. Best regards, Michael pgpeG1yT0REMz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Review of gnome-gmail
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2010-09-25 15:28, David Steele wrote:
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package gnome-gmail.
* Package name: gnome-gmail
Version : 1.6-3
Upstream Author : David Steele da...@users.sourceforge.net
* URL : http://gnome-gmail.sourceforge.net/
* License : GPL
Section : gnome
Language : Python
It builds these binary packages:
gnome-gmail- Add Gmail support to GNOME
The package appears to be lintian clean.
The upload would fix these bugs: 597903
The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
- URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gnome-gmail/
- Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
main contrib non-free
- dget
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gnome-gmail/gnome-gmail_1.6-3.dsc
Gnome Gmail adds support for the Gmail web client as a GNOME Preferred
Application for email. Once selected, mailto links, Nautilus Send
File commands, Open Office Send Document commands, etc, will cause
an appropriate Gmail window to open in your default browser.
You can read more about Gnome Gmail from the following Press coverage:
Lifehacker -
http://lifehacker.com/5493654/gnome-gmail-tightly-integrates-gmail-into-linux-desktops
Linux Magazine Online -
http://www.linux-magazine.com/content/view/full/42375
Sourceforge Blog - http://sourceforge.net/blog/gnome-gmail-made-simple/
Thanks for your assistance
Hi
(Sorry for the double mail - I forgot to send it to the mentor list as
well so others could see it had been answered)
Thanks for your interest in Debian. It looks like you have not received
any feedback on nor found a sponsor for your package yet. I have spent
some time reviewing your package and got a few comments for you, which I
hope you find useful.
Please note that I am not a Debian Developer (DD), so I cannot sponsor
your package even if you address all my comments/remarks. Also neither
python nor GNOME is my strong suit, so there are possibly some
python/GNOME specific things that I have missed in my review.
On a related note have you considered contacting/joining the Debian
GNOME or the Debian Python Apps team? These teams may be a better source
for help with your package and possibly also sponsors for your package.
Also you may want to read [1] if you have not already done so; there are
talks about how to improve the current RFS template and what some
mentors look for/would like to see in an RFS.
Anyhow; my review:
d/watch:
- Contains a lot of unused comments (left overs from dh_make)
d/rules:
- lots of unused comments (looks like left overs from dh_make)
- Consider using either dh $@ (a.k.a. the dh7 method or tiny rules)
or cdbs. These tools can handle your entire build without any
override targets/modification to their default setup/run.
This would also remove a warning during the build [2].
- Even if you do not use dh7 or cdbs you should clean up your
d/rules files. As an example, there is nothing to do in the
binary-arch target.
Note: if you are joining a team, the team may have a helper tool
preference or a build style. In that case you probably want to stick
with the build styles preferred by the team.
d/control:
- ${shlibs:Depends} does not make sense for arch: all packages.
It finds arch dependent dependencies for native shared libraries.
- The Description (and possibly the Synopsis) needs improvement.
It might be a help to have a look at [3].
d/changelog:
- You have multiple revisions in your changelog, but this package has
not been released into Debian. Consider merging it into a single
entry[4].
Note there is no reason to repeat the closes for the
same bug (see man dpkg-buildpackage/dpkg-genchanges about the -v
flag for more information). Though if you need the package built
with the -v flag be sure to mention this in your RFS, so that your
sponsor is aware of it.
d/copyright:
- Looks like a mix of freestyle and the DEP-5 machine readable
format.
Either of those formats are acceptable, but the mix appears a bit
weird for me. I would recommend you choose either of the formats
and stick to it.
- You have claimed copyright for the year 2009, but there is no
mention of copyright in the upstream files except for
gnomemail.glade, which claims copyright for the year 2010 (about 200
lines into the file).
I am not sure if that single copyright mention in gnomemail.glade is
enough for the FTP-masters. Optimally you would write your copyright
statement plus the license header in all your source files.
- There is no explicit mention of allowing the GPLv2 or later in your
upstream pacakge as far as I can tell. COPYING only contains GPLv2
and none of the source file seems to carry an explicit license.
Note: The How to apply GPL v2 to your program example in COPYING
is not a
