Re: RFS: svgsalamander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 2011-02-19 18:49, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> Dear pkg-java team members,
>
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "svgsalamander".
>
> * Package name : svgsalamander
> Version : 0089-1
> Upstream Author : Mark McKay <mark@kitfox.com>
> * URL : http://svgsalamander.java.net/
> * License : LGPLv2 or BSD
> Section : java
>
> It builds these binary packages:
> libsvgsalamander-java - SVG engine for Java
>
> The package appears to be lintian clean.
>
> This library is a dependency for ReplicatorG, a 3D printing software I'm
> intending to package. Of course it may be useful for other software,
> though a quick search didn't find any. (Anyways, it didn't find
> ReplicatorG either...)
>
> The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
> - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/svgsalamander
> - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free
> - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/svgsalamander/svgsalamander_0089-1.dsc
>
> It is also available under git at git://git.debian.org/pkg-java/svgsalamander.git
> (Browser: http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-java/svgsalamander.git;a=summary)
>
> This is my first Java package, so I'm sure I didn't get everything
> right. Off the top of my head, here are some of my thoughts:
>
> - The jar is being signed at build-time. Should I disable this?
>
I have not tried to build it; else I would have been able to answer this
myself. :P If signs automatically without requiring any interaction,
then it is not a problem (build-wise, but the signature is probably not
worth a lot then). If the build stops waiting for the user to (e.g.)
supply a password, then it is definitely not okay (since then it will
not be rebuildable on our auto-build machines).
> - I decided to install the javadoc at the same time as the
> package. Should I split it in another package?
>
Yes please; javadoc tends to take up a lot more space than the jar files
themselves. You should also make the javadoc link against the system
javadoc (this requires a Build-Depends on default-jdk-doc plus the -doc
packages of any package it depends plus [for ant] a couple of <link
href="/path/to/javadoc/" /> in the javadoc tag).
> - I'll put the package under team-maintainance. If I understand the
> Policy correctly, I should set:
> ---8<---
> Maintainer: Debian Java Maintainers <pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>
> Uploaders: Nicolas Dandrimont <nicolas.dandrimont@crans.org>
> ---8<---
> even though I'm neither a DD nor a DM. Is that correct?
>
Yes.
> Thanks in advance for your insights,
You are welcome, :)
So; debian/docs is empty - if the file is not needed you should remove it.
The copyright file does not list that
svg-core/src/main/java/com/kitfox/svg/batik/RadialGradientPaintContext.java
(and quite possibly other files) are Copyright Apache Software
Foundation and under Apache-1.1
You should probably ping upstream about that.
Then there is doc/dev/GetTRDoc.pdf which says that "Distribution is
unlimited" but says nothing about modification. Torsten would probably
ask where the source of it is, though it looks to be a scanning of the
paper document.
What is the version scheme of this package? Just the raw svn revision?
If so 0~svn${revision}-1 is probably a better version in case upstream
makes a real release later. On a related note; dpkg ignores the "00"
prefix - as demonstrated by:
$ dpkg --compare-versions 0089-1 '=' 89-1 && echo "yes"
~Niels
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=K+M9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: