On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 13:51:33 +0530 Kumar Appaiah <akumar@ee.iitm.ac.in> wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 3.99.2-1 > of my package "libitpp". http://packages.qa.debian.org/libi/libitpp.html When asking for a sponsor, please mention whether the package already exists in Debian - i.e. whether you have had a sponsor who is now busy etc. Different sponsors have different requirements. The following are mine. ;-) > It builds these binary packages: > libitpp-dev - C++ library for signal processing and communication > libitpp6 - C++ library for signal processing and communication (I wish the mentors template would require the long description in RFS emails.) A -dbg package needs to be provided. (-dbg packages are likely to become mandatory by Lenny.) There is 500kb of source in the doc/ directory and probably more by the time the generated HTML docs are installed - more than enough to warrant a -doc package too. With these in place, you can tweak the short descriptions to indicate what is contained in each package by only mentioning "C++ library" for libitpp6 and adding a suffix of (development files) (debug files) (documentation) or something along those lines. Compare with libqof1: ii libqof-backend-qsf0 Query Object Framework - XML backend module ii libqof-backend-sqlite0 Query Object Framework - SQLite backend module ii libqof-dev Query Object Framework - Development Headers ii libqof-doc Query Object Framework - API Documentation ii libqof1 Query Object Framework ii libqof1-dbg Query Object Framework - Debug Symbols Some of the content from the Features list at http://itpp.sourceforge.net/ needs to be summarised in the long description - remove the repeated research section: "It is being developed by researchers in these areas and is widely used by researchers," doesn't make a lot of sense and is probably redundant anyway. Explain what the package does, not who you expect to be able to use it. Shorten the bit about NEWCOM - mention NEWCOM if you have to, otherwise concentrate on what the library can do, not who might be using it outside Debian. These are trivial to fix: dpkg-source: warning: file debian/copyright has no final newline (either original or modified version) dpkg-source: warning: file debian/itpp-config.1 has no final newline (either original or modified version) dpkg-source: warning: file debian/changelog has no final newline (either original or modified version) dpkg-source: warning: file debian/libitpp6.docs has no final newline (either original or modified version) dpkg-source: warning: file debian/watch has no final newline (either original or modified version) dpkg-source: warning: file debian/control has no final newline (either original or modified version) dpkg-source: warning: file debian/libitpp-dev.manpages has no final newline (either original or modified version) Now to the serious stuff: What's the dependency on gcc-3.4 gcc-3.4-base all about? (brought in when built in pbuilder). Is atlas3 really dependent on such an old compiler? atlas doesn't seem to have had much attention upstream for some time. By depending on what appears to be a dead (or extremely slow) upstream, you may be storing up a lot of problems for your own package. Atlas3 already has an RC bug, filed by one of the gcc maintainers, regarding compiler issues. Is there an alternative? Is there anyone working on atlas upstream? The problem arises from the fortran dependency within atlas, it should be updated to use libfortran2 instead of libg2c0 but that is probably a large upstream change. Is it likely to happen? (It has also FTBFS on arm which is another RC bug.) http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?pkg=atlas3&ver=3.6.0-20.6&arch=arm 2 RC bugs, a dependency on an outdated compiler and a quiet/dead upstream have been more than enough to have even a popular package removed from a release before now - if that happens to atlas, your package will be removed too (especially as libitpp2 only has 6 popcon users). This package has a large dependency tree (127MB of archives). Libraries are difficult enough without adding so many dependencies. Tell me about yourself - how familiar are you with some of the dependencies of this package? I am interested in this package, even though it is clearly outside my normal remit of embedded development, but I am also concerned about whether it is wise to encourage a package with such problematic dependencies. > > The package is lintian clean. No, it is not. W: libitpp source: debian-rules-ignores-make-clean-error line 35 W: libitpp source: substvar-source-version-is-deprecated libitpp-dev > I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Sorry, not in the current state. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpoEllWY2qV8.pgp
Description: PGP signature