Re: gpsd package (looking for a review)
On Tue, 2004-10-19 at 15:52 +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Tilman Koschnick <lists@subnetz.org> [2004.10.19.1546 +0200]:
> > I'm not looking for a sponsor (someone already offered to upload
> > it as soon it is in good shape), but for opinions. Generally
> > regarding quality, and a couple of specific questions.
>
> IMHO, nobody should upload a package they have not verified
> themselves. The agreement you have with your sponsor could all too
> easily lead to a blind upload.
Oh, I don't think the offer was meant as a blank cheque; I'm pretty sure
he will review before upload, and only upload if he is satisfied. Just
thought it would be a good idea to ask for opinions on d-m.
> Thus, I suggest you search for a sponsor willing to look at your
> package and provide you with the feedback. Unfortunately, my Sponsee
> queue is overfull, so I won't.
>
> > - The package contains shared libraries, which as far as I know
> > are only used by the gpsd programs. As I understand it, small
> > packages can keep their libraries in the main package. But is this
> > the preferred option?
>
> Well, yes and no. Having them as separate packages would encourage
> reuse, but maybe they aren't made for use by other programmes? You
> must look at the code and decide for yourself.
>
> > Would generating lib* and lib*-dev packages be unneccesary bloat
> > or not?
>
> Depends on your decision. If they are useful outside gpsd, then no,
> it's not bloat. Otherwise it could be conceived as such.
The libraries are clearly meant to be used outside of gpsd, for any
client wanting to connect to it. There just isn't anyone using it yet,
AFAIK.
> Anyway, lib packages are not for the faint-hearted, so please do not
> attempt them unless you really know how to package Debian packages,
> have read the Debian library packaging guide, and have a firm
> understanding of SONAMES and ABI/API versions.
I wasn't aware I would have to deal with libraries when I took on the
package - last I looked, the code wasn't separated out into libs, but
part of the main program.
I have some experience with shared libs, and some experience with deb
packaging, just not with official packages yet, so they never had to
withstand the scrutiny of debian developers... Besides, I have to
package libraries for a client right now, so I have someone paying me to
practice on it :-)
> > (Note that I already split out a couple of helper or test programs
> > into a package called gpsd-clients to keep the dependencies for
> > the main daemon small.)
>
> Very good!
>
> > - Basically the same question for python modules. I'd like to move
> > them out of the main package to reduce the dependencies even
> > further. One of the helper programs uses them - can I put them in
> > there? Does a python module need to depend on python - surely any
> > program using this module will depend on python anyway? (lintian
> > says it needs to.)
>
> Use dh_python.
dh_python generated the dependency on python. Although in this case, I
think it's unneccesary. I'd like to keep the python module in the main
package, at least until someone actually uses it for something else and
wants it split out. But I'd prefer not to have gpsd depending on python,
since the program itself doesn't need it.
> And here too, only factor out the python modules if you expect them
> to be used outside of the package. In general, I would start small
> and wait for requests to separate them.
Cheers, Til
Reply to: