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

Re: RFS: peless -- GTK Text browser

On Thu, 24 May 2007 08:00:57 +0200
Giorgio Pioda <gfwp@ticino.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> no, the cleanup refers to the debian package. I've already done it for
> the most (but not uploaded to my web space).

A: Because it breaks the thread of discussion.

Q. Why is top-posting such a PITA?

You haven't specified which of Damyan's questions you are answering.
You haven't provided any reason to think that those issues have been

> But if you have newer version let me know, I'll work on your new
> release.

Just remember that nobody on the mentors list has seen these other
messages. A bit for introduction / formatting would have helped.

> Paul Elliott ha scritto:
> > On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 12:08:16AM +0300, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
> >> -=| Giorgio Pioda, Tue, 22 May 2007 21:51:48 +0200 |=-
> >>> I have packaged a nice GTK text reader that can be very usefull to
> >>> compare files (shown in separated tabs), and search for text in
> >>> files. The package seems to me quite mature and is downloadable
> >>> at:
> >>>
> >>> http://web.ticino.com/gfwp/debian/peless-1.108/peless_1.108-1.dsc
> > 
> > Gentlemen, do any of these questions/issues, require that I do
> > anything to the upstream source? Is there anything I need to do?
> > 
> >> Some comments/questions:
> >>
> >> * Why aren't the .dsc and .changes files gpg-signed?

As maintainer, you need to change that yourself.

> >> * Upstream URL is missing from debian/copyright

As maintainer, you need to change that yourself.

> >> * There are some commented lines in debian/rules that will never be
> >> used. Why not get rid of these?

As maintainer, you need to change that yourself.

> >> * Similarly, debian/watch may be cleaned up somewhat.

As maintainer, you need to change that yourself.

> >> * Long description misses a space between "them." and "It". The
> >> second sentence seems redundant to me

As maintainer, you need to change that yourself.

> >> * A .desktop file would be nice

As maintainer, you can add that yourself.

> > I think there is one. look in /usr/local/share/applications after a
> > "make install".

Then package it. It's no good to anyone in the make install, it has to
be in the .deb so that it installs into /usr/share/applications/.

> >> * The URL in debian/watch
> >> (ftp://ftp.berliOS.de/pub/peless/ubuntu.704/peless-(.*)\.tar\.gz)
> >> looks strange. Is there a "distribution-neutral" source?
> > The spec files for other distros are in the tarball but these
> > are not installed by "make install". So these files would not
> > be seen by a binary user. A developer would know that these are not
> > relevant if not  working with that distro.

It would still be better if upstream released a single tarball without
ANY packaging files - no spec files, no debian/ directory, etc. Just
the bare source. The debian/ directory is for the Debian maintainer
(you), not upstream.

> > It has the advantage that it automaticly figures out what
> > version of boost is there. In most cases no parameters
> > are needed on the ./configure line.

That is actually quite bad - this package could end up being
cross-built and there should be options to control the automated
detection so that components can be explicitly turned off for limited
resource installations or to remove dependencies. You might think that
boost is absolutely imperative for every operation within the program,
I would prefer the option to remove it. :-)

Why should a text editor need threading anyway? True, it could be
useful in some situations but it will just get in the way in other

> > These changes affect only the way peless is built, it involves
> > no changes to the ultimate source i.e. the .cc and .h files!

It still means a new upstream release - unless you want to implement
this as using dpatch and debian/patches. The build system (configure.ac|
in, Makefile.am|in etc.) are all part of the upstream tarball and
changing any of those upstream means a new upstream release is

> > Sometime in the future, I would like to get peless's error
> > messages translated into languages other than English to make
> > peless multi-lingual. The prep is all there, all user visible
> > strings are indicated by the _() macro! I just have to find
> > someone to do the translation.

Generate a POT file and include it in the upstream tarball (which will
then end up in Debian as the .orig.tar.gz|.bz2). Translators are much
happier if the POT file is available.

Then consider asking the Debian debconf translators - they generally
don't mind working on package POT files as well as the (shorter)
debconf POT files.

BTW. don't put this off into sometime in the future - do it now. It
takes time to translate packages and the best time to ask is BEFORE the
upload. Give translators at least two full weeks. Even better, ask for
translations now, incorporate the translations upstream alongside the
other changes and make a new upstream release. Then every distro gets
the translations.




Neil Williams

Attachment: pgpCygdg03gMg.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: