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

Re: RFS: Sitplus -- Free software framework for ludic-therapeutic activities

2011/8/17 Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu>:
> [Luis, I'll drop the CC in case you confirm that you are reading this list]
> Hi Luis,
> thanks for your work on sitplus.

Hi, Andreas. Thanks for reviewing my package. I've uploaded a new
version, 1.0.1-2, to [1].

> Here are my comments.
> 1. At first I would recommend to reflect group maintenance via


> as we are using the Debian Med packaging list as maintainer and it might
> probably make sense to allow DM uploads just in case you might intend to
> become a DM in the future.

Of course, I would like to become a DM. I've set DM uploads to yes.

> 2. You are specifying
>   Vcs-Git: git://github.com/luinix/sitplus-debian.git
>   Vcs-Browser: http://github.com/luinix/sitplus-debian
>   to maintain the debian/ directory.  I accepted your application for
>   the Alioth Debian Med tam today so you will have access to the
>   Debian Med SVN or Git repository at your preference.
>   However, if you are using Git the Git-addictive here prefere to
>   have a clone of the full upstream source inside ther repository
>   using pristine tar.  I can not competently comment on the reasons
>   because specifically in the case of sitplus I do se a lot of byte
>   ballast (17MB compressed data) for just maintaining the debian/ dir -
>   however as a mere GIt beginner I do not feel responsible for the Git
>   part of the policy.
>   If you don't mind SVN, simply commiting the few files into the SVN
>   might be another option for your workflow.  Regardless what you
>   decide (i will adapt to any decision) we should use the Vcs fields
>   pointing to the Debian Med repository to enable other team members
>   commiting flawlessly.

I've uploaded my code to git.debian.org/git/debian-med/sitplus.git and
updated the Vcs field as you told me. I've followed [2], I hope I
didn't made any mistake. I've set commit notifications to
debian-med-commit@lists.alioth.debian.org, is that right?

> 3. debian/copyright
>   The package includes
>    Files: graphics/pictures
>    Copyright: 2011 Jordi Martorell Palliso & Lidia Porcar Tabernero
>    License: CC-BY-NC-SA
>   and CC-BY-NC-SA says:
>    * Non-Commercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
>   This clause is in conflict with DFGS[1] item
>     6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
>   and thus makes the package non-free.  Do you see any chance to contact
>   the authors whether they might consider a more liberale license?
>   BTW, the file graphics/pictures/License.txt mentions
>      http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/legalcode
>                                                   ^^^
>   while debian/copryright says
>      http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/legalcode
>                                                   ^^^

Upstream has just released a new version that fixes this issue with
graphics/pictures license. Now it is CC-BY-SA. I've uploaded this new
version, 1.0.1.

> 4. Please explain debian/sitplus.dirs: etc/ld.so.conf.d
>   I do not see any reason for creating this directory which remains
>   empty in the final package and twiddling around with ls.so is at
>   best hackish and should not be done if not needed.

I've tried several approach for having a private lib directory
(/usr/lib/sitplus). One of them was adding a new directory to ld path.
At the end I have used an RPATH, but I forgot to remove that directory
from the package.

> 5. IMHO the files debian/install and debian/sitplus.install are
>   competing each other.  I think sitplus.install wins, but I
>   would remove debian/install to not confuse others.I would also
>   prefix debian/post{inst,rm} files by 'sitplus.' because this
>   makes things more verbose in multi binary packages.  The same for
>   debian/menu and debian/docs.


> So far for the important remarks, now a bit of nitpicking:
> 6. You provided a debian/sitplus.desktop file which is great (I wished
>   more maintainers (including me in some cases) would do so.  However,
>   a missing manpage is claimed by lintian - it would be great if you
>   could write a basic one to follow good packaging practice (feel free
>   to ask if you need simple examples).

I've included a very basic manpage, I hope that is enough.

> 7. If you switch on lintian -I mode you see some more messages:
>   I: sitplus source: quilt-patch-missing-description lib_location_fix.diff
>   I: sitplus source: quilt-patch-missing-description packager.diff
>   I: sitplus: spelling-error-in-binary usr/lib/sitplus/libspcore.so childs children
>   I would at least inform upstream about the spelling error and adding
>   some comments to your quilt patches would not harm (even if this is
>   no precondition for sponsoring the package for sure).

I've added descriptions to the patches, and I've added a new patch to
fix the spelling error for the moment. I still have to notify

> 8. debian/rules claims:
>    # This file was originally written by Joey Hess and Craig Small.
>   So either you mention these two people in debian/copyright if they
>   have written some code of it (which they most probably did not) or
>   just replace this dh-make template by something which makes more
>   sense.  I recommend something like
>     # debian/rules file for sitplus  (hey, this is no sample, right?)
>     # Author: <you>
>     # License. <as in debian/copyright)
>   And yes, unfortunately about 50% of all Debian packages do contain
>   this dh-make template ... :-(


> Kind regards and thanks for your work on this package
>      Andreas.

Again, thanks for reviewing my package. Best regards!

[1] http://mentors.debian.net/package/sitplus
[2] http://documentation.debian-projects.org/other/debian-packaging-git/

"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a
horrible warning" -- Catherine Aird

Reply to: