[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: netcdf with new and improved diffs

Hi Warren!

Warren Turkal wrote:

> Kevin,
> Today is your lucky day. I addressed all of your bullet points along with a 
> fun bonus. The new revision (1~pre7) is at [1]. I now think that 1~pre7 is 
> ready for experimental after a revision change to 1.

Thanks for addressing all of these points!  Unfortunately I've found
some new things to complain about :-) related to the tarball repackaging
and the new binary packages.  (This is *not* an objection to either
thing that you've done; both are good ideas.)

> So you know, the orig.tar.gz has changed in this revision. I untarred it, 
> ran ./configure && make distclean to get rid of some files, and tarred it 
> back up.


One minor point is that the orig.tar.gz of a source package that was
modified for Debian (even just to repack it) should contain a directory
rather than
although anyone downloading the source package with "apt-get source"
will still obtain a netcdf-3.6.2 directory.

Also, the debian directory (in the diff.gz) should contain a file named
"README.Debian-source" that describes how the repackaged orig.tar.gz
tarball was generated from the original upstream tarball.  (In this case
you could basically just copy your second paragraph I quoted above into
that file :-)  Note you don't need to install this file in the binary
.debs, just in the source package.

You can find these recommendations in section of the Developers

> I have the netcdf-doc package in this revision. I moved the docs from 
> libnetcdf-dev as well as the html docs into this package. Please check it 
> out.

--> Close #321337 in debian/changelog then?

I did look into the -doc package and everything looks fine.

You may want to have libnetcdf-dev Suggest or Recommend netcdf-bin
and/or netcdf-doc, but this is optional; only do it if you think it's a
good idea.

Linda gives me three warnings, related to the new -doc and -dbg packages:

> W: netcdf-doc; This package ends in -doc, or -docs, and isn't in Section: doc
>  This package is considered to be a documentation package, but is not
>  contained in Section: doc. This may cause warnings from dinstall when
>  you upload.

--> add "Section: doc" under the netcdf-doc stanza in debian/control

> W: netcdf-dbg; Long descriptions contains short description.
>  The long description of this package contains the short description.
>  This is a bad idea, as the long description should be long, and not
>  just reiterate the short description.

--> This warning I think can be ignored, since you just have the short
description as part of a complete sentence in the long description.

> W: netcdf-dbg; There is no Depends: line in the control file.
>  The package has no Depends: line in the control file. This is not
>  allowed by Policy if the package in question contains binary objects.
>  Perhaps try calling dpkg-shlibdeps or dh_shlibdeps in the package
>  rules file.

--> Have netcdf-dbg Depend upon "libnetcdf4 (= ${binary:Version})"
--> Also, please give netcdf-dbg "Priority: extra" in debian/control

I think that overall the packages are in great shape, despite my
nitpicking.  Please fix the points mentioned above, change the version
number to 3.6.2-1, and I will be happy to upload to experimental. Thanks
again for taking on this important science-related package; there cannot
be too many maintainers of science packages in Debian!

Finally, a couple ancillary questions:

The change of your maintainer address to the penguintechs dot org
address is intentional, right?

During the build, there are a lot of error messages of the form
"warning: enumeration value ‘NC_NAT’ not handled in switch".  Is this
something that could be a problem?  Maybe upstream would best know the
answer to this...

best regards,

Kevin B. McCarty <kmccarty@princeton.edu>   Physics Department
WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/    Princeton University
GPG: public key ID 4F83C751                 Princeton, NJ 08544

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: