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

Re: [RFS] MintPy packaging

Dear Sebastiaan,

Il 30/06/22 22:21, Sebastiaan Couwenberg ha scritto:
On 6/30/22 08:48, Antonio Valentino wrote:
Il 26/06/22 21:45, Sebastiaan Couwenberg ha scritto:
On 5/15/22 09:31, Antonio Valentino wrote:
The package for mintpy still needs some work, but, for a proper testing, I would like to have all dependencies are in the archive.

The dependencies are now in the archive and on the mirrors enabling package builds without custom repos for those.

With the recent update of lintian, the overrides need to be updated and new issues need to be reviewed.

I haven't had time for an extensive review yet, but I did notice the long list of dependencies for the binary package which shouldn't be required as ${python3:Depends} and dh_python3 should take care of those using setup.py install_requires. Am I missing something that explains the hardcoded list of dependencies?

There is still a related issue:

  I: dh_python3 pydist:292: Cannot find package that provides
  dask_jobqueue. Please add package that provides it to Build-Depends or
  add "dask_jobqueue python3-dask-jobqueue" line to
  debian/py3dist-overrides or add proper dependency to Depends by hand
  and ignore this info.

ups, I didn't see it
It should be fixed now

mintpy/objects/cluster.py imports for non-local clusters, so it's not strictly required and can be ignored.

According to /usr/share/doc/dh-python/README.PyDist the dependency can be ignored by only specifying the dist field and nothing else.

Also, hardcoded dependencies should be specified first, then the ones set via substitution variables like ${python3:Depends} and ${misc:Depends}.

The link overload in the extended description is also not great.

GFDL license is considered non-free when it contains invariant sections, does this apply to MintPy?


As far as I can understand it is not the case for mintpy.
The wiki-2.0.cpt file, the only one with GFDL license, includes the a license notice clearly stating

# any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no

# Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A


By the way I have also checked that the "wiki-2.0.cpt" is never used directly in the code and it can be easily removed.
If you think that it is safer to remove it, please let me know.

Thanks for the clarification.

Otherwise I think that the rest of the comments raised in your review have been addressed, so please fee free to go on with a final review and upload.

Suggests is sufficient for -doc package, installing the library shouldn't pull in the documentation by default that should be installed by the user explicitly.

OK; I think that I have addressed all your comments

Antonio Valentino

Reply to: