Re: RFS: leo -- a literate editor with outlines for X-Window
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 12:24:16AM +0200, Xavier Antoviaque wrote:
> On Mon, 24 May 2004 22:08:51 +0200
> Jeroen van Wolffelaar <jeroen@wolffelaar.nl> wrote:
>
> > Some remarks, not that I'm not a Debian Developer (yet), but before
> > leo can be included in Debian, these issues need to be resolved anyway
>
> Thanks for your reply, its helps a lot.
You're welcome.
> I repackaged leo, I hope it solves the problems you are pointing out.
I'm doing only a very shallow check now (time to go to bed really :)
> You will find it in http://foobbs.org/debian/leo/
>
> > - The .diff.gz is huge, because you included a number of html files
> > ripped from a website. Please don't do that this way.
>
> I ripped it off. The contents of this documentation are in the
> LeoDocs.leo, anyway.
k.
> > - Not your fault (see date of original message), but a new upstream is
> > available
>
> Fixed.
>
> > - If you include your own manpage (great that you've written one --
> > did you sent it upstream already?), as sgml. You included the
> > generated manpage in the .diff.gz: don't do that, have build it into
> > debian/<package>, leo.1 is a generated file.
>
> Fixed. I also switched to XML DocBook.
>
> As for sending the man-page upstream, I will make a bundle with some
> patches to fix hard-coded paths I needed to change by hand.
ok.
> > - debian/rules: don't invoke programs with /usr/bin/<program>, but
> > simply <program> (docbook-to-man)
>
> Fixed - but this time with xsltproc.
>
> > - You fail to build-depend on debhelper and python
>
> Fixed for debhelper, and for Python there is no build-depend, at least
> in the current package.
building the previous package failed on my system, dh_python seemed to
require python to run. Indeed, dh_python(1) says so.
Since you're still using dh_python, you _do_ need to builddepend on
python. Alternatively, you could also drop dh_python, if you're sure you
don't need anything special.
I don't know python to be honest, so I don't know why dh_python doesn't
generate the .pyc generation code, and whether or not that is bad or
good.
> > - In debian/control, use ${python:Depends}, in stead of hardcoding the
> > python dependencies
>
> I tried to use it, but it gives bad results : it does not detects the
> need for python-tk, and requires python2.3, even if python2.2 can be
> used.
python2.3 seems to be default on Debian Sarge, and python is rumoured to
be broken w.r.t. backwards compatibility and such. Why not drop
python2.2? (Since I'm a python-know-nothing, you might want to ignore my
question :) )
> > - I don't think it's priority 'optional', see
> > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive#s-priorities
>
> I do not see any other category that could fit. Could you be more
> specific ?
I mean, I think it's 'extra', rather than 'optional'. Sorry I was so
cryptic.
According to the quoted URL, 'optional' is for stuff you might
reasonably want by default on a system, I don't think leo fits in that
category (admittingly, quite some optional stuff doesn't fit it very
well, so feel free to ignore this if you think it's really appropriate
to be 'optional'.)
> > - Description: Capitalize it correctly, and don't start it with 'a',
> > but something like 'Literate editor ...'
>
> Fixed. That policy was modified since 2002, isn't it ? I remember being
> careful about this point.
Eh, don't know by heart... Anyway, it's just how the majority of
descriptions are, and if everybody would follow the majority, it'd
become consistent, which is a good think :).
(...)
All cool.
> > Also, upon installation you should somehow create precompiled python
> > files (*.pyc). I don't know python myself, but there must be some
> > preferred way to do so, iirc there is a (unofficial?) python policy.
>
> Yes : there even are autogenerated postinst and prerm scripts by
> debhelper for this. But as Leo has to work with both python2.2 and
> python2.3, I do not see a correct way to handle the generation of .pyc
> for both versions (except packaging two versions of Leo).
This is food for debian-python@lists.debian.org, I really have no clue.
Good work by the way, it seems that you've quite quickly fixed some
details on the package now :).
Since this is a python package, you maybe have better luck asking over
there for a sponsor too, by the way (after you've asked your 2.2 <-> 2.3
question).
--Jeroen
--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
Reply to: