[review] waagent: Windows Azure Linux Agent (part1)
Hi,
reviewed source package roughly.
-----------------
README
> 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.
-----------------
debian/changelog
> 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)
-----------------
debian/control
> 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.
-----------------
debian/rules
> # -*- 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.
-----------------
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
source?
--
Regards,
Hideki Yamane henrich @ debian.or.jp/org
http://wiki.debian.org/HidekiYamane
Reply to: