Le dimanche 13 mai 2012 03:43:14, Pau Garcia i Quiles a écrit :
- You use tarball-in-tarball approch with a
jQuery.jPlayer.2.1.0.source.zip into your
jquery-jplayer_2.1.0.orig.tar.gz. I'm not sure this is useful for this
simple package : you should just repack upstream to an
orig.tar.{gz,bz2}. This is easier for code review and for applying
patches.
AFAIK it's not possible to repack a .zip file while preserving
timestamps, permissions, etc. That's why I'm packaging the .zip inside
the .orig.tar.gz.
Since you provide a debian/watch file, you should try uscan --repack : it
will download your upstream ZIP file and repack it to a correct debian orig.tar
format (default: gz) while preserving timestamp and permission (IIRC).
I'm using a .tar.gz instead of .tar.bz2 because I'm still providing
packages for Wt (witty) for Ubuntu Hardy, which uses an old debhelper.
Since version 3.1.1, Wt depends on JPlayer for the WAudio and WVideo
classes, therefore I will provide jquery-jplayer backports for Ubuntu
Hardy.
AFAIK, .tar.{bz2,lzma,xz} support is not linked to debhelper but to dpkg and
archive tools (dak for Debian or soyuz for Ubuntu). But you're right, I don't
think Hardy support dpkg 3.0 source format.
- Jplayer.fla file seems to be useless (according to upstream [1] and to
your debian/rules). Since this file seems to be a binary proprietary
blob (and I don't know any tool in Debian that can edit this file) I
think you should strip it from upstream tarball during repack.
Given that I cannot preserve permissions or timestamps, and this file
(although binary) is the preferred editable form, not a compiled,
minified or obfuscated form, I'd rather not repack. The .fla is still
useful for people who use Adobe CS tools to edit the Flash (the .fla
is a project file), which can be used on Debian via Wine.
I understand that .fla file is useful for people running Adobe tools but it's
really look like a binary blob :) = largely undocumented, no free software
tool in main to edit... You should at least document those facts into
debian/copyright or debian/README.source to ease reviewing of your package by
FTP Masters.
- (optional) Maybe you should try Debian source package formats 3.0
(quilt) [2] ?
It's not supported on Ubuntu Hardy. Due to that, and given that there
are not patches, no multiple upstream tarballs, or anything where
source format 3.0 would be useful, I can't see a valid reason to
change from 1.0 to 3.0.
Okay.
- (optional) There is also improvement for debhelper handling. I think
that you can simplify your debian/rules file [3]
I don't really like the simplified debian/rules formats. Too much
magic hidden behind convention. I like to see what's going on.
Ack.
Cheers,
--
Damien
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
