[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[review] waagent: Windows Azure Linux Agent (part1)


 reviewed source package roughly.


> Supported Linux Distributions
> 1.CentOS 6.0+
> 2.Ubuntu 12.04+
> 3.Suse (SLES) 11SP2+
> 4.Open Suse 12.1+

 Yes, let's add "5.Debian 6.0+" :-)

 And, it contains example source and too bit long.
 I think README should be divided into README, example.configuration.xml and
 example.topology.xml file, and add debian/example file and specify it for
 Debian package side.


> waagent (20120606-1) testing; urgency=low

 Upstream added its changelog and it says its version as 1.1, 1.2... see github.
 So, should update it to master and specify 1.2~git20121206-1 or so. (1.2 is not
 released yet, so added ~git20121206. 1.2 is greater than 1.2~git20121206)

 and don't specify "testing", you should set "unstable" or "experimental"
 if you don't have special reason (i.e. release managers ask you)

>   * Initial release

 Please submit ITP request to BTS and get its number, then put it as (Closes: #nnnnnn)


> Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 8.0.0), python

 python-all is better than python.

> Standards-Version: 3.9.3

 Now newest version is 3.9.4. Probably lintian warn it's too new but you can
 safely ignore it.

> Vcs-Git: git://github.com/Windows-Azure/WALinuxAgent.git
> Vcs-Browser: https://github.com/Windows-Azure/WALinuxAgent/

 No, Vcs-* field should point Debian package vcs, not upstream one.
 Set "Homepage: https://github.com/Windows-Azure/WALinuxAgent/"; instead.


> # -*- makefile -*-

 remove it :)

> install-agent:
>         mkdir -p debian/tmp
>         cp waagent README NOTICE debian/tmp
> .PHONY: install-agent
> override_dh_auto_install: install-agent

 This target is unnecessary. Just specifing those files in debian/{install,docs}
 is enough. And, I wonder that including NOTICE file or not, since it just says
 "Copyright 2012 Microsoft Corporation" and it is described in debian/copyright.


> Copyright: 2012 Microsoft <walinuxagent@microsoft.com>

 Maybe "Microsoft Corporation" is better.

> Files: debian/*
> Copyright: 2012 Arnaud Patard <apatard@hupstream.com>
> License: GPL-2+

 Well, same license as upstream source for debian/* is better, in my opinion.
 If debian/patches/* is distributed under GPL, can you apply it to Apache-2.0


 Hideki Yamane     henrich @ debian.or.jp/org

Reply to: