Re: RFS: mosquitto
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Roger Light <email@example.com> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> Thanks for the pointers.
Pay it forward ;)
>> You have one wishlist lintian issue ( try running with -iIE --pedantic )
>> I: mosquitto source: duplicate-long-description libmosquitto0 libmosquitto0-dev
>> I: mosquitto source: duplicate-long-description libmosquittopp0
> I've fixed these.
>> I'm not sure about the binary packages:
>> I don't know if you can have underscores. Might want to change those
>> to dashes.
> Ah, I just changed those two packages from being a combined single
> package. Names are now fixed.
Understandable. Next time ( No judgment here ) try a pbuild before an
upload. I know it takes a few extra minutes ( esp for a multi-binary
package like this ), but it's worth it.
>> Might want to add DEP3 headers to the patches and change
>> the Copyright to DEP5 while you're in there as well.
> Done and done.
> I've re-uploaded the changes.
Yup, the dsc is now lintian clean, and the DEP headers look great.
>> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on libgcc_s.so.1 could be avoided
>> if "debian/libmosquittopp0/usr/lib/libmosquittopp.so.0" were not
>> uselessly linked against it (they use none of its symbols).
> I don't know how to fix this. Any suggestions?
You should go through the CFLAGS and check to see where it's linking
against -lgcc ( IIRC, that could be wrong ). This is a low-priority
issue, and an upstream one. I don't think many DDs would have you
apply a patch for this before an upload ( again, I could be wrong ).
Now, we also have some issues with the .deb files. Let me post my
issues ( I've removed the expanded info to avoid spamming everyone )
P is pedantic ( Very picky, but most DDs prefer that they're not
present ), and I ( informational issues ).
P: libmosquitto0: no-upstream-changelog
This one is tricky because you have a multi-binary. I'm not sure it's
best to deal with this yet. The issue is that you have to install the
Changelog to the system, but since you're installing more then one
binary package, only one should get installed ( or many partial ones
). This is pedantic for that reason. Best judgment case.
Personally, I'd put it off until someone wants a clean fix.
I: libmosquitto0: no-symbols-control-file usr/lib/libmosquitto.so.0
I: libmosquitto0-dev: extended-description-is-probably-too-short
P: libmosquitto0-dev: no-upstream-changelog
Again, there is a reason all these are marked Pedantic ;)
I: libmosquittopp0: extended-description-is-probably-too-short
P: libmosquittopp0: no-upstream-changelog
I: libmosquittopp0: no-symbols-control-file usr/lib/libmosquittopp.so.0
P: libmosquittopp0-dev: no-upstream-changelog
W: mosquitto: wrong-name-for-upstream-changelog
I: mosquitto: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign
P: mosquitto-pub: no-upstream-changelog
W: mosquitto-pub: empty-binary-package
This is a pretty big issue. Are you not installing things to the .deb?
Check the .install ( or makefile ) for that target
P: mosquitto-sub: no-upstream-changelog
W: mosquitto-sub: empty-binary-package
Same as -pub :)
I: python-mosquitto: capitalization-error-in-description python Python
Small issue, this should be a quick fix
P: python-mosquitto: no-upstream-changelog
A lot of these are dupes. See if you can pick away one some of these.
Other then the -sub and -pub binaries being empty, nothing is too much
of a showstopper, I think. I'm rusty on that one I tag, so I'm not
sure how severe that is.
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org
> Archive: AANLkTiko2+wri5p_axae_=P+6ir=ZD0yESYkG6J7pZRN@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/AANLkTiko2+wri5p_axae_=P+6ir=ZD0yESYkG6J7pZRN@mail.gmail.com
Keep up the great work,
All programmers are playwrights, and all computers are lousy actors.
#define sizeof(x) rand()