Re: FreeMedForms 0.8.2 New upstream
> After beeing sure to work on your latest status I did a more thorough
> review and I now have additional remarks. These remarks were triggered
> by lintian errors which were not properly covered by overrides.
> Previously they were written down with explicit versioning which made
> them ineffective for any new upstream release. I now used wildcards
> which are working better. It would be a good idea if you would fire
> up lintian before you offer the package for sponsering. :-)
Oh yes, I was a bit in the hurry without enough time to check everything...
The project is looking for a debian package maintainer.
> When looking at the package I also detected some code duplication
> issues:
>
> 1. /usr/lib/freemedforms/ and /usr/lib/freeaccount both have
Ok, you're right. But these files are not the same for each apps. These libs are plugins and plugins are specific to apps and are named identically. So common libs are copied into
/usr/lib/freemedforms-common/
and specific plugins in
/usr/lib/$APPNAME/
> IMHO this should be strictly avoided.
With the precedent explanation is this remark this the same ?
> In my commit that fixes the lintian overrides I intentionally
> left
>
> freeaccount: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath usr/lib/freeaccount/libIdentity.so /usr/lib/freemedforms-common
>
> untouched to raise some signal.
Ok.
> 2. Another code duplication is
>
> freemedforms-libs: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath usr/lib/freemedforms-common/libquazip.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib/freemedforms
>
> Didn't you just packaged libquazip? So why not linking against
> this package rather than injecting another rpath issue?
Ah yes, I can use the libquazip now that I'm sure that neither libquazip nor freemedforms 0.8x will be included in the future debian stable release. But Ubuntu precise does not include the libquazip, and as I'm using the same debian files for the PPA, I kept the libquazip building. I can work on a patch but I do not have any time for this before weeks...
Eric
Reply to: