Bug#564533: Deb source package
Hello Paul, Have you uploaded this to mentors or provided a DSC somewhere? I am happy to have a brows through it -- I maintain one package in debian currently, so I am no expert, but I can run my eye over it if you have a link. Thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/531314.39464...@web110414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com
Bug#564533: Deb source package
On Thursday 04 March 2010 19:16:52 D Haley wrote: Hello Paul, Have you uploaded this to mentors or provided a DSC somewhere? I am happy to have a brows through it -- I maintain one package in debian currently, so I am no expert, but I can run my eye over it if you have a link. Here's the mentors link: http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/sponsor-pkglist?action=details;package=shedskin I aim to refresh this packaging soon to take various changes into account, notably the resolution of some uncertainty around the licensing of various contributions. Thanks for taking an interest! Paul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201003042204.36120.p...@boddie.org.uk
Bug#564533: Deb source package
OK, so here are my comments. Feel free to ignore whatever you like, as I am
often not right.
* Lintian is giving native package errors. If you do a quick source build with
debuild (debuild -S -i -I), this will tell you what your tarball should be
called, so as to aid navigating this annoying notation.
:~/Documents/deb/shedskin/shedskin-0.3$ debuild -S -i -I
This package has a Debian revision number but there does not seem to be
an appropriate original tar file or .orig directory in the parent directory;
(expected one of shedskin_0.3.orig.tar.gz, shedskin_0.3.orig.tar.bz2,
shedskin_0.3.orig.tar.lzma or shedskin-0.3.orig)
continue anyway? (y/n) n
* I got a warning whilst building source package.. Are you seeing this?
dpkg-source: warning: diff
`~/Documents/deb/shedskin/shedskin_0.3-2.diff.gz.new.Haj083' doesn't contain
any patch
*The permissions from the DSC are a bit odd? Everything in debian/ seems to be
755? should it not be 644 (except rules I think)?
* Shouldn't the description be wrapped at 80 chars in debian/control, with each
new line preceded by a space?
*In debian/copyright, there are some chars that are not showing properly:
75 Copyright (c) 2009 Jérémie Roquet arkano...@gmail.com
* Standards version is old school. Should be 3.8.4 (or maybe even later...)
* debina/changelog seems to contain program changes, rather than package
changes? changelog should be package only AFAIK. Any program changes should be
hopefully distributed by upstream
* adding a watchfile is good (debian/watch)
* You may have been alluding to this before, but does the GPL trump the AS-IS
free stuff, as you are building them together? Particularly section 5b
b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is
released under this License and any conditions added under section
7. This requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to
keep intact all notices.
You may need to contact upstream and ask them to sort this out, once a correct
course of action has been identified.
* Keeping this on a VCS somewhere would be nice, makes it easy for other
packagers to pull down your package at some later date. This integrates neatly
with the debian PTS. to do this just set Vcs-Git/Vcs-Svn or whatever in
debian/control
*I get a warning whilst attempting to build the binary version.
dpkg-deb: warning: 'debian/shedskin/DEBIAN/control' contains user-defined field
'Python-Version'
*Make clean still appears to leave files behind (build-python-*,
debian/shedskin.1.gz, ...). I usually use a VCS to help me work out if I have
accidently not done a proper clean (do a commit, then see what changes before
and after clean using fakeroot make -f debian/rules clean ).
* Lintian outputs a good wad of errors and warnings:
N: Setting up lab in /tmp/YnJLKVJw7I ...
N: Processing 2 packages...
N:
N: Processing source package shedskin (version 0.3-2) ...
W: shedskin source: empty-debian-diff
N:
N:The Debian diff of this non-native package appears to be completely
N:empty. This usually indicates a mistake when generating the upstream
N:tarball, or it may mean that this was intended to be a native package
N:and was built non-native by mistake.
N:
N:If the Debian packaging is maintained in conjunction with upstream, this
N:may be intentional, but it's not recommended best practice. If the
N:software is only for Debian, it should be a native package; otherwise,
N:it's better to omit the debian directory from upstream releases and add
N:it in the Debian diff. Otherwise, it can cause problems for some package
N:updates in Debian (files can't be removed from the debian directory via
N:the diff, for example).
N:
N:Severity: normal, Certainty: possible
N:
W: shedskin source: debhelper-but-no-misc-depends shedskin
N:
N:The source package uses debhelper, but it does not include
N:${misc:Depends} in the given binary package's debian/control entry. Any
N:debhelper command may add dependencies to ${misc:Depends} that are
N:required for the work that it does, so recommended best practice is to
N:always add ${misc:Depends} to the dependencies of each binary package if
N:debhelper is in use.
N:
N:Refer to the debhelper(7) manual page for details.
N:
N:Severity: normal, Certainty: possible
N:
W: shedskin source: build-depends-on-python-dev-with-no-arch-any
N:
N:The given package appears to have a Python development package
N:(python-dev, python-all-dev or pythonX.Y-dev) listed in its
N:Build-Depends or Build-Depends-Indep fields, but only Architecture:
N:all packages are built by this source package. Python applications and
N:modules do not usually require those dev packages, so you should
N:consider removing them in favour of python, python-all or pythonX.Y.
N:
N:If you are building a Python extension instead, you should have
N:development packages listed in
Bug#564533: Deb source package
On Thursday 04 March 2010 22:56:27 D Haley wrote: OK, so here are my comments. Feel free to ignore whatever you like, as I am often not right. Here goes! * Lintian is giving native package errors. If you do a quick source build with debuild (debuild -S -i -I), this will tell you what your tarball should be called, so as to aid navigating this annoying notation. I really need to concentrate on proper version identifiers. Previously I had the ubuntu stuff in these version identifiers, and there are other issues about targeting unstable which I think I've fixed in this packaging. * I got a warning whilst building source package.. Are you seeing this? dpkg-source: warning: diff `~/Documents/deb/shedskin/shedskin_0.3-2.diff.gz.new.Haj083' doesn't contain any patch I should note that I've only tested this with pbuilder. See this page for my methods: http://packages.boddie.org.uk/ *The permissions from the DSC are a bit odd? Everything in debian/ seems to be 755? should it not be 644 (except rules I think)? I'll check this. * Shouldn't the description be wrapped at 80 chars in debian/control, with each new line preceded by a space? I've left the first line as a one-line description as this seems to be the convention. Maybe there's a line break in there for clarity, but it is wrapped to either 78 or 80 lines. *In debian/copyright, there are some chars that are not showing properly: 75 Copyright (c) 2009 Jérémie Roquet arkano...@gmail.com This is UTF-8-encoded text: if there's an encoding declaration I should add, could you perhaps point me to the appropriate documentation? * Standards version is old school. Should be 3.8.4 (or maybe even later...) I must admit that I generally don't follow the standards versions and just propagate what I find in contemporary packages. Hints welcome! * debina/changelog seems to contain program changes, rather than package changes? changelog should be package only AFAIK. Any program changes should be hopefully distributed by upstream I guess I've misunderstood this. I always thought that it was a standardised summary of changes, which would be really useful, of course. * adding a watchfile is good (debian/watch) This is the repository/upstream monitoring, right? * You may have been alluding to this before, but does the GPL trump the AS-IS free stuff, as you are building them together? Particularly section 5b b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is released under this License and any conditions added under section 7. This requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to keep intact all notices. You may need to contact upstream and ask them to sort this out, once a correct course of action has been identified. I haven't pursued this vigourously yet, but obviously they need to retain original notices. Adding the GPL notices is a best practice for affected files, but it should be noted that the project maintainer intends to have the library files under a permissive or weak copyleft licence. * Keeping this on a VCS somewhere would be nice, makes it easy for other packagers to pull down your package at some later date. This integrates neatly with the debian PTS. to do this just set Vcs-Git/Vcs-Svn or whatever in debian/control It's actually here: https://hg.boddie.org.uk/shedskin-packaging/ I'll add the field. Apologies for the certificate! I may end up just doing HTTP for this site. *I get a warning whilst attempting to build the binary version. dpkg-deb: warning: 'debian/shedskin/DEBIAN/control' contains user-defined field 'Python-Version' I guess this is some policy-related stuff that should have been discarded a long time ago. *Make clean still appears to leave files behind (build-python-*, debian/shedskin.1.gz, ...). I usually use a VCS to help me work out if I have accidently not done a proper clean (do a commit, then see what changes before and after clean using fakeroot make -f debian/rules clean ). I'll look into this. The rules file is still a bit of a mystery to me. * Lintian outputs a good wad of errors and warnings: [...] Hope thats not too much! Much of that was already explained above. I'll take a look at these warnings and try and improve the quality. My role in this has been to try and nudge Shed Skin closer to proper Debian status based on some fairly informal packaging I've done for myself before, so if anything I'll learn how to make cleaner packages. Thanks for the feedback! Paul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201003050129.04680.p...@boddie.org.uk
