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

Re: Two questions on package quality

Nikita V. Youshchenko dijo [Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 09:48:02AM +0300]:
> Hello people.
> I was asked to sponsor a package upload.
> I am in doubt on tho following issues, so I/m asking debian-devel for 
> comments.
> 1. Upstream does not provide a manual page for the binary. Packager decided 
> to add binary-without-manpage to lintian override file, and Tag: 
> no-manual-for-binary to linda override file.
> My questions are:
> - Is having a manual page for each binary inside package a mandatory 
> requirement these days?

It's not mandatory, but strongly prefered. Think about this: How
complex is this binary's user interface? Is it easy enough so that a
user can understand its working without a manpage? Great, then writing
a manpage should prove trivial. Is it so complicated that writing a
manpage is too much work? Well, then how do you expect your users to
understand and use it? :)

> 2. Upstream tarball contains ttf-dejavu font. Linda found that and 
> complained. I've asked packager to remove font both from binary package 
> and upstream tarball, and to make binary package to depend on ttf-dejavu 
> instead.
> So .orig.tar.gz got repackaged, and now it differs from upstream.
> Should then 'upstream' version string be changed from x.y.z to 
> x.y.z.debian? Or not? Or it does not matter?

Yes, it should be changed. Not because of the policy, but for
clearness. Of course, document prominently that you are not building
from upstream sources. And, if possible, add a check in debian/rules
so you (or someone else) don't forget to repackage the orig.tar.gz for
the next upstream version. Make the build fail if it has ttf-dejavu. 


Gunnar Wolf - gwolf@gwolf.org - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973  F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: