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

Re: BALLView: new package version

Michael Banck schrieb:

On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 02:07:24PM +0100, Andreas Moll wrote:
again, there a new improved package version available.

I saw this thread now; I tried to package BALL and BALLView for Debichem
a while ago (because WOW the screenshots look great) and took another
shot at it today before seeing your ITP.

I got a few comments on the package (the latest one on mentors.d.n):

 * tetex-* got retired in Debian, texlive and texlive-latex-extra should
   get added as Build-Depends.  However, that still didn't do it for me,
   it failed on fancyheadings.sty, and this doesn't appear to be in any
   package right now.  Maybe we will have to do without fancy headings
   for now.
Well, the only packages that provide fancyheadings are
tetex-extra and tetex-src.
If these two packages do not exist, there are further problems with building the tutorial's PDF.

 * Where do you have the 1.2 tarball from? The official release seems to
   be 1.1.1, and development releases seems to be "1.2 pre 04.07".
It is the later version. I am working on the package such that it will be ready for the next major release. Some months ago I intended to release the current version, but my boss instead decided that we should add some other functionality and delay the release...

 * You should make clear in debian/copyright which parts of the upstream
   tarball you removed (as I understand it, you repackaged it).
I just removed the build support for MacOS and Windows which wont be needed. Do I really need to mention this?

 * Can you convince upstream that CF_VERSION_CHECK is maybe not needed?
   You work around it by touching config.lic, which doesn't look very
   nice either (if that code wasn't written by upstream, anyway).  As
   BALL is LGPL, I see no reason to bother the user with a "Yes, I
   agree" kind of stuff similar to Windows EULAs.
I will try, but my boss wrote it himself. Therefore, I guess he wont let it
be removed.

 * The way you not just rename upstream's debian/ to debian-upstream/,
   but extensively use it in debian/rules looks very dubious to me; e.g.
   debian-upstream/createBALLVIEWDEB looks very un-debianish to me. I
   really suggest you just ignore debian-upstream; I very much doubt it
   would pass the ftp-master checks for entering the Debian archive
   as well.
This directory is part of the upstream package. (I am upstream and downstream author.) It contains all files that are needed for building the modified tarball as well as the source and binary debian/ubuntu packages.

 * Priority: in debian/control should be `optional' not `extra' I think.

 * What about the rest of BALL?  Will you package it eventually?  I'd be
   interested in them, but haven't taken a closer look.  You said in an
   earlier mail that there are too many configure options for it, but
   unless there are many conflicting ones, there's lots of precedent in
   Debian - we just turn on the most useful options, and if users
   request further options, that can be thought about as well.
I dont intend to build a BALL package in the near future. Feel free do so if you are interested ;) Maybe you can have a look at
BALL/source/autobuild and
which should give you a good impression on the build process.

That's it for now, it's getting late :)
Well for me too ;)

Best regards


Reply to: