Re: RFS: sysinfo -- simple GNU/Linux program that displays computer/system information

[Adriaan Peeters <apeeters@lashout.net>]

On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 10:25 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 03:37:19PM +0100, Mario Iseli wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 14:13 +0100, Adriaan Peeters wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > I am looking for a sponsor for sysinfo [1], detailed info below. I
> > > already have two packages in Debian: dnstop and sipcalc.
> > 
> > Hi, i'm not yet a DD. Because i'm sick i have time to review your
> > package and i found some mistakes.
> > 
> > in your diff:
> > --- sysinfo-0.6.1.orig/src/Makefile.in
> > +++ sysinfo-0.6.1/src/Makefile.in
> > 
> > This is wrong!! you may not change anything at the orig! If you have to
> > apply some changes you should use dpatch and apply the patches by
> > debian/rules.
> It is allowed to change things in the orig _by using the diff_.  The
> orig must be pristine if possible, or be a stripped down version of
> the real orig, without any modifications (only the necessary amount of
> removals, eg for DFSG-freeness).
> 
> Many, many packages have .diff changes outside of ./debian/.  Some
> prefer to use dpatch or the like to isolate the changes to ./debian/,
> and the .orig changes just end up in patchpatch format in
> ./debian/patches.
> 
> But there is no rule against .diff fragments outside of ./debian/, and
> AFAIK its not even strongly recommended; (of course, there are times
> when it makes perfect sense: when there are many independent
> Debian-specific changes to upstream source).
> 
> What is wrong is to have the .diff apply changes to generated code
> (such as ./Makefile in an autoconfed tree).

Because I run autoconf before packaging, I guess it is not possible to
use dpatch for my Makefile.am file. And the changes to Makefile.in are
the result of running autoconf, so using dpatch for that would be really
wrong.

> > debian/changelog:
> >   * Initial Debian Release (Closes: 333680)
> > This makes no sense, it is a debian package so the "debian" can be
> > ommited, the rest is ok.
> Hmmm I think it could make sense.  Maybe "initial upload to Debian
> archive"?  Many times people maintain packages for some time before
> finding a sponsor, they even go through * New upstream releases.  Its
> good practice IMO to keep a changelog during that period, even though
> that version is not going to be in Debian.

As I am not aware of anyone using that package from my repository, so I
removed the Debian part.

> > debian/copyright:
> > It was downloaded from <http:/...> (the crocodiles cannot be ommited).
> > Why everywhere those asterisks?
> Huh?  Are you looking for the full URL?  Since its an sf.net download
> page, I think this is the best way.  See bugs and discussion linked to
> at:
> 
>   http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2005/12/msg00035.html

We are talking about the watch file right, not copyright? I updated the
watch file with the comments from the above url.

For the url in copyright: why are those lt and gt signs needed? I did't
see them in any existing package.

Thanks for your comments,
Adriaan