Re: GPXSee

[Sebastiaan Couwenberg <sebastic@xs4all.nl>]

On 12/12/18 2:08 PM, Luboš Novák wrote:
>> Thanks for your work on GPXSee so far. It needs a little more work
>> before it can be uploaded.
>>
>> * debian/changelog
>>
>> The ITP closed in the changelog (#884253) is not owned by you, but by
>> JCF Ploemen (jcfp) <linux@jcf.pm>. Have you talked to him about taking
>> over the package?
> 
> I sent him email (a few months ago), but I didn't get the answer.

He is active, so you'll need to try again.

>> The ITP also mentions an outstanding license issue. I haven't found more
>> details about that, though. Do you have more information about that issue?
> 
> Problematic are IMHO csv files. (EPSG license vs. Debian license of GDAL)
> https://github.com/tumic0/GPXSee/issues/56

The only problematic files in GDAL are two .wkt files. The CSV files
should be fine.

>> CONTRIBUTING.md mentions not accepting code contributions and requiring
>> a CLA in the future, that may be part of the issue, and makes the
>> package not a great candidate for inclusion in Debian. The burden of
>> carrying patches will be on us when upstream doesn't accept code
>> contributions.
> 
> In the worst case, it means duplicating work. A realistic approach is forwarding bugs to upstream.

Then you need to forward your patches are issues.

>> Once the issues with the package are resolved, and is ready for upload,
>> the distribution needs to set to unstable and urgency changed to medium,
>> the new default in dch.
>>
>> * debian/compat
>>
>> Compatibility level 11 implies that the package isn't backportable to
>> older Ubuntu LTS releases without changes. This increases the burden on
>> UbuntuGIS contributors if they want to include the package too.
>>
>> Consider using compat level 9 which is widely supported. Refer to the
>> COMPATIBILITY LEVELS section in debhelper(7) about which changes need to
>> be made for compat level 9 due to changed defaults (e.g. dh --parallel).
> 
> Compatibility level 11 is recommended by debhelper man page. Backport to Ubuntu isn't my priority now

But not by our team policy. Reconsider using level 9.

>> Why does gpxsee-data recommend gpxsee? Ideally the data package should
>> not have dependencies on other packages built from the same source,
>> unless strictly required. And even in that case there are likely better
>> solutions.
> 
> Prevent installing useless data package?

That makes no sense.

If a user chooses to only install the data package they get the gpxsee
package too, but the data package doesn't require the gpxsee package so
it shouldn't have the dependency. As it's highly unlikely that a user
will install the data package, the depency from gpxsee is sufficient.
Once the package is removed the data package will be marked for autoremoval.

>> The license shortname should be GPL-3+ to indicate the "or later" part
>> of the license. And the standalone license paragraph for it needs to be
>> expanded, the the copyright file for osmium-tool linked above.
> 
> GPXSee is strict GPL-3. (without the "or later")

Then that needs to be documented in the GPL-3 standalone license
paragraph, the referenced common license is the "or later" version.

The license paragraph should include the text from the "How to Apply
These Terms to Your New Programs" section of the license adapted for the
not "or later" case.

>> * debian/patches/update_desktop_file.patch
>>
>> Please configure your .quiltrc as documented in the policy and refresh
>> the patch, see:
>>
>> https://debian-gis-team.pages.debian.net/policy/policy.html#quilt
>>
>> This patch should be forwarded upstream, but will upstream accept it?
> 
> Who know, but the patch is very simple...

It should still be forwarded upstream so that other users and
distributions can benefit from those improvements too. That's one of the
reasons why we don't want to carry patches indefinitely.

>> * debian/watch
>>
>> Handle common issues, see:
>>
>> https://wiki.debian.org/debian/watch#Common_mistakes
>>
>> Packages using GitHub can use a watch file like:
>>
>> https://salsa.debian.org/debian-gis-team/osmium-tool/blob/master/debian/watch
>>
>> Like debhelper compat level 11, watch format 4 is not as widely
>> supported, using format 3 is preferred unless format 4 is strictly
>> required (which it's not for this package).
> 
> C&P from here:
> https://wiki.debian.org/debian/watch#GitHub
> "My" watch file is sufficient and more readable than your example

Your watch file doesn't handle common issues, the wiki example only has
the bare minimum. We have improved the watch file in our packages, and
your package needs to conform to the team standards.

As you may have seen in the lintian output, your package doesn't have an
upstream metadata file, this is very useful to record the Vcs & Bug
reporting URLs in a machine readable fashion. Please add it.

Kind Regards,

Bas

-- 
 GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1
Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146  50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1