Hi,
this is a RFR (Request For Review) for my blogofile package.
This is a RFR and not a RFS because I know that there are still several
issues and open questions which will provoke every possible sponsor to
reject the package from an upload.
Nevertheless I would embracing any review, comment, help or hints to
these points.
* Package name : blogofile
Version : 0.7.1-1
Upstream Author : Ryan McGuire <ryan@enigmacurry.com>
* URL : http://www.blogofile.com/
* License : Expat (MIT)
Section : web
Description:
Blogofile is a static website compiler, primarily (though not
exclusively) designed to be a simple blogging engine and written in
python. It requires no database and no special hosting environment. You
customize a set of templates with Mako, create posts in a markup
language of your choice (Markdown, Textile, reStructuredText or plain
old HTML) and Blogofile renders your entire website as static HTML and
Atom/RSS feeds which you can then upload to any old web server you
like.
To access further information about this package, please visit the
following URL:
http://mentors.debian.net/package/blogofile
The packaging work can be followed there:
http://git.debian.org/?p=collab-maint/blogofile.git
And a preview version of the package can already downloaded with dget:
dget -x
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/blogofile/blogofile_0.7.1-1.dsc
My questions respectively the known issues:
- Since a few days the watch file included isn't working. Probably this
is because of a change of the GitHub frontend on October 12th (see
https://github.com/blog/958-the-code-tab). I informed Gunnar Wolf
about this because he is the maintainer of githubredir.d.n.
- There is no upstream changelog file. Lintian complains about it.
- Is it right, that a missing upstream changelog file is not a
strict must have and it will not preventing the package to be
included into Debian?
- Lintian complains about an extra-license-file. I included this file
because the upstream LICENSE.txt contains beside the actual Expat
(MIT) license some thoughts from the Author about his view on the
license an Free Software in general.
- Should it be included or removed from the package?
- The package builds fine with debuild respectively dpkg-buildpacke but
not with pbuilder or cowbuilder. That's sound for me that there are
missing build dependencies but unfortunately I couldn't identify
which one until now.
- The .orig.tar.gz contains the extra small python script
converters/wordpress2blogofile.py which neither is in the
resulting Debian package nor present if you install blogofile with
the python easy_install method. So I thing this is simple missing
in the upstream setup.py. From my point of view it's not so worse for
the first packaging of blogofile. But after the release of blogofile
0.8 it may make more sense to include the converter into the package.
Also because version 0.8 will include a secondary converter called
blogger2blogofile.py.
- Do you think I should try to get the first one included into the
package by know?
- Should it be separated packaged as an extra package
blogofile-converters?
- My resulting package contains a blogofile.egg-info directory. I'm not
sure if it's needed for the runtime of blogofile or only during the
build of the package. I ask on #debian-mentors and got that there is
no clear answer to this. Sometimes a package need the .egg-info
directory at runtime and sometimes not.
- Do you know if it's needed or not?
- Can somebody explain my how to identify this point?
- Suggest or recommend a VCS, or explicitly git?
Blogofile itself will greatly work without any Version Control
System, but there are these two points:
- Along the normal advantages of using a version control system you
can easily add a post-commit hock on your (remote) repo to
automatically let blogofile compile your new content and make it
directly available through your webserver.
- Is this enough to at least suggest any vcs?
- You can call blogofile to create a new blog from an existing
example site. Two of these examples are shipped with the package
as .zip files. And a third one will be downloaded via git as a
recent version of the original blog of the Author. This means to
use this feature you need explicitly git.
- Would this be enough to recommend on git?
- What do you think about shipping the example site as .zip file in the
Debian package?
- Should they go into a separate -data package?
Thank you for keep reading up to here. Again any review, comment, help
or hints are really welcome.
Kind Regards,
Andreas
--
Andreas Rütten
mailto : AndreasRuetten@gmx.de
PGP, 6C9DFFB2, 8394 99DA 59BD BCE2 3FC8 3A9E 6633 0089 6C9D FFB2
--
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature