Re: Newbie questions on packaging opencpn
Hi!
Thanks for taking time to review. I figured the first package would be a
bumpy road, and indeed it is. Here are lot's of new tools and practises
for me...
On 01/09/18 09:58, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> On 9/1/18 9:17 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
> * debian/changelog
>
> Closes the wrong ITP, #123456 is not the ITP for unarr.
Fixed. Also added a 0~ prefix to the version number so it is still sorts
correctly if/when there is a proper upstream version tag.
> * debian/compat
>
> Consider using debhelper compatibility level 9 instead, it allows for
> easier backports to Debian stable and Ubuntu LTS releases.
Ok... doesn't seem to break anything (?)
> Maintainer must be the Debian GIS Project, and you should be in the
> Uploaders field.
Done
> The Homepage field has a syntax error.
Fixed
> The Vcs-* fields must point to the repository on Salsa.
>
> Use cme to restructure of the control file, see:
Done
> https://debian-gis-team.pages.debian.net/policy/policy.html#debian-control
>
> * debian/copyright
>
> Has syntax errors.
>
> Strip the ./ from the file paths.
Fixed using cme (new tool for me, seems nice).
> The license paragraph for LGPL-3 doesn't include the standard content,
> hence it's not known if it's the "or later" version. See for example:
Updated (it's plain LGPL-3, not LGPL-3+)
> https://debian-gis-team.pages.debian.net/policy/policy.html#debian-copyright
>
> * debian/patches
>
> Consider adding DEP-3 headers to indicate whether the patches have
> been forwarded and applied upstream.
Not much to tell.. but it was an important remminder to me to upstream
relevant patches (done).
> Don't specify custom commands in the dh_auto_* overrides, instead pass
> arguments to those dh_auto_* commands.
Indeed, I had bad feelings about that. Fixed.
> * debian/unarr-docs.docs
>
> This package does not exist, remove this file.
Done
> * debian/watch
>
> The file does not exist to download upstream tarballs with uscan.
>
> Since there are not tagged releases in the upstream git repository,
> those tarballs cannot be used. Please talk to upstream to consider
> tagging releases.
Done, filed a bug.
> * debian/README.source
>
> The non-standard way to download upstream tarballs is not documented
> in this file.
Fixed
> How is it decided which commit to package?
Upstream has not committed anything since 2015, so the tip is sort of
stable.
> On 9/1/18 9:58 AM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>
> Additional comment.
>
> I've delete the debian tag, because the package will need more work
> before it can be uploaded.
Right, seems natural. Forgive a newbie elephant in the china store...
I also noted that a temporary branch was a bad idea.
Cheers!
--alec
Reply to: