Re: [RFS] MintPy packaging
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.
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?
https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#GNU_Free_Documentation_License_.28GFDL.29
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.
Kind Regards,
Bas
--
GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1
Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1
Reply to: