Il 04/07/2010 01:13, Iain Lane ha scritto:
> Hello,
>
> Thanks for your review.
Hi, I'll add some more specific comments.
>> missingh:
>> * source/format: you're setting it to 1.0; are there any specific
>> reason for not use 3.0 (quilt)? If not, I'd say 3.0 it's more
>> recommended.
>
> No, I just thought that setting 1.0 would be the more minimal change. I
> don't understand what the point of 3.0 (quilt) is without any patches
> is, but please change it yourself before uploading if you want to.
If you prefer it, I'm fine. I think that not using 1.0 anymore could
allow the Debian project to drop the support for it (which would lead to
less work for those who work on archive-related tools and similar), but
probably there's no particular rush for it.
>> * control: there are some missing substitution variable
>> (dpkg-gencontrol complains that some of them are not used); TTBOMK, you
>> should use:
>> - dev:
>> Depends:
>> ${haskell:Depends},
>> [...]
>> Probably, the Haskell Policy should be updated (and not only for this
>> reason). Maybe I can find some time next week to have a look at it.
>
> This feels somewhat like I'm being punished for problems that I didn't
> introduce.
Sure, you didn't introduce problems, and this was really not meant to
punish you. But, as I said in my last email, having these fields enable
us to use hash-based dependency, which prevents us from having problems
related to using a library linked to the wrong version of another. After
all, they're not that big work, so I think it is a good practice to add
them if they're not present when modifying a team maintained package.
>> * About the fact that libghc6-missingh-doc is substituting
>> missingh-doc: reading policy 7.6.2, my understanding is that Conflicts
>> is more appropriate than Breaks (because the old package must be
>> completely removed). Why are you changing it?
>
> I actually asked about this in #-devel and, since policy 3.9.0, it seems
> that Breaks: is preferred. So I think we're alright here.
Fine.
>> * There are some lintian suggestions that you may want to follow (are
>> you aware of the -I and --pedantic options? Sometimes they're really too
>> pedantic, but usually they can give you good hints). All I: and P: are
>> completely optional, but there are also two W: that you should fix (BSD
>> is not anymore in common-licenses; I suspect this is due to the fact
>> that there are many different BSD licenses, so saying "BSD" isn't clear:
>> it's better to copy the verbatim text).
>>
>
> I didn't look at these, but rather did the specific changes I was trying
> to achieve, in addition to some low hanging cleanups.
Again, my opinion is that, in team maintaining, when you find some
previous problems in a package, you also try to fix them (and lintian
W:s related to debian/copyright are problems, given the importance that
d/copyright has for Debian). Anyway, if this really is unacceptable for
you, we can go on.
>> haskell-configfile:
>> * lintian: as before (but without W:s)
>
> P: libghc6-configfile-dev: no-upstream-changelog
> P: libghc6-configfile-doc: no-upstream-changelog
> I: libghc6-configfile-doc:
> possible-documentation-but-no-doc-base-registration
>
> Don't know what you want me to do about this.
I've much more of them:
> $ lintian -I --pedantic haskell-configfile_1.0.6-2_amd64.changes
> I: haskell-configfile source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field "section" in package libghc6-configfile-dev
> I: haskell-configfile source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field "section" in package libghc6-configfile-prof
> I: haskell-configfile source: missing-debian-source-format
> W: haskell-configfile source: changelog-should-mention-nmu
> W: haskell-configfile source: source-nmu-has-incorrect-version-number 1.0.6-2
> P: haskell-configfile source: direct-changes-in-diff-but-no-patch-system ConfigFile.cabal and 4 more
> I: haskell-configfile source: debian-watch-file-is-missing
> P: libghc6-configfile-doc: no-upstream-changelog
> P: libghc6-configfile-dev: no-upstream-changelog
> P: libghc6-configfile-prof: no-upstream-changelog
> $ lintian --version
> Lintian v2.4.2
As I said, nothing terrible here. I think that at least the easy things
(d/watch and the first two) could be fixed, but we can ignore this too.
>> * package descriptions: I don't know what you mean with "DHG
>> consistence", but don't like very much the initial paragraph you have
>> put in all the descriptions (it could be the last, maybe; the first
>> paragraphs should give a general idea of what the package do, not where
>> to find information about the language it is written with). Is it really
>> a best practice to have such a preamble? (this question, of course, is
>> for the full mailing list).
>
> I copied this from another package (mtl). I thought it was common across
> group packages. Maybe not.
I thought it wasn't. Well, this will require more general discussion in
the DHG, so far we can leave your description as you put it.
As promised, today I think I'll have time to finish the review and upload.
Ciao, Giovanni.
--
Giovanni Mascellani <mascellani@poisson.phc.unipi.it>
Pisa, Italy
Web: http://poisson.phc.unipi.it/~mascellani
Jabber: g.mascellani@jabber.org / giovanni@elabor.homelinux.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature