Re: Orthanc 0.6.2 - Review needed for "Orthanc Client"
Hi Sebastien,
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 01:34:53PM +0200, Sebastien Jodogne wrote:
> >I have no idea how to really test the binary packages but I surely can
> >verify whether the package builds or not and finally upload if it looks
> >OK which I can confirm so far.
>
> The most basic test consists in opening the Web interface of
> Orthanc, that is listening on http://localhost:8042/.
OK. I did so and it is great that you did document this in
README.Debian which is very helpful for users starting with a package.
> You could also try and upload DICOM files from the command line using:
>
> # storescu localhost 4242 *.dcm
>
> A more advanced use case consists in uploading DICOM files using the
> embedded Web interface of Orthanc. I have just created a video
> showing this process [1].
Hmmm, there are people out there who so not have any DICOM files at hand
and I belong to this minority. ;-) Honestly speaking: I'm not a
medical imaging expert at all or more generally I have not more than
common sense about any medical topic. So if you want more testers we
need to relay on other users. But I think once the Debian package is
uploaded people will respond with bug reports, if something doese not
work.
> >While I'm a bif fan of modularising binary packages and I like your step
> >please document it in the package changelog. It only says
> >
> > * New upstream version: 0.6.2
> > * Fix licensing issue with the SHA-1 library. Closes: #724947
>
> OK, I have added a line about the new packages in the changelog [2].
OK.
> >Moreover it would be better if you would use "UNRELEASED" instead of
> >"unstable" as target distribution to flag for others that this packaging
> >is not yet uploaded as actual package.
>
> OK, I will use UNRELEASED for future upstream versions.
Fine. As I said that's a formalism which helps others.
> >You as upstream also might like to care about
> >I: orthanc: spelling-error-in-binary usr/sbin/Orthanc Accesss Access
> >[...]
> >(You need to call lintian with -I option to see things like this.)
>
> This is a misspelling that comes with the jQuery File Upload
> toolkit. I have overridden the warning [3].
Hmmmm, OK. I will just give you a warning about this: Strictly
speaking compressed JavaScript files are considered as binary without
source. If some (over)picky person will spot this code in your source
he will require you to ship the uncompressed source as well. That could
be kind of annoying and I think we should just go on uploading the
package as is to fix #724947 which is way more important. I just want
to give you some warning what sooner or later might happen. The proper
way to deal with things like this is to create a libjs-jquery-* package
and depend from this (apt-file search is uncovering two other packages
in Debian that are affected by the same problem - nikola, owncloud). I
also noticed that libjs-jquery-uploadify is just packaged - may be this
is a helpful hint for you.
In any case this is no issue for the current upload.
> Curiously, the lintian of my Debian Sid box does not warn me about
> this misspelling, even after an update of the distribution. I do not
> understand why...
$ LANG= apt-cache policy lintian
lintian:
Installed: 2.5.19
Candidate: 2.5.19
Package pin: 2.5.19
Version table:
*** 2.5.19 601
501 file:/home/ftp/pub/debian/ testing/main amd64 Packages
501 http://ftp2.de.debian.org/debian/ testing/main amd64 Packages
50 http://ftp2.de.debian.org/debian/ unstable/main amd64 Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
$ lintian -I -i orthanc_0.6.2-1_amd64.changes
I: liborthancclient0.6: no-symbols-control-file usr/lib/libOrthancClient.so.0.6
N:
N: Although the package includes a shared library, the package does not
N: have a symbols control file.
N:
N: dpkg can use symbols files in order to generate more accurate library
N: dependencies for applications, based on the symbols from the library
N: that are actually used by the application.
N:
N: Refer to the dpkg-gensymbols(1) manual page and
N: http://wiki.debian.org/UsingSymbolsFiles for details.
N:
N: Severity: wishlist, Certainty: certain
N:
N: Check: shared-libs, Type: binary, udeb
N:
I: liborthancclient-doc: possible-documentation-but-no-doc-base-registration
N:
N: The package ships a .html or .pdf file under /usr/share/doc/, which are
N: usually documentation, but it does not register anything in doc-base.
N: (Files under an examples directory are excluded.)
N:
N: Refer to Debian Policy Manual section 9.10 (Registering Documents using
N: doc-base) for details.
N:
N: Severity: wishlist, Certainty: possible
N:
N: Check: menus, Type: binary
N:
N: 2 tags overridden (2 info)
> >So please document all your changes in changelog and I will upload.
>
> Please do not hesitate to let me know if further improvement is required...
Well, "required" is a hard category. It is not really required to
regard these both issues, but sooner or later we should deal with this.
Just tell me, whether you want to have the package super clean or
whether I should upload for the moment and we leave this for some
later point in time.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: