Re: ITR: libitpp (updated package)
Neil Williams <codehelp <at> debian.org> writes:
> > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 3.99.2-1
> > of my package "libitpp".
>
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/libi/libitpp.html
>
> When asking for a sponsor, please mention whether the package already
> exists in Debian - i.e. whether you have had a sponsor who is now busy
> etc.
OK, so this is the last time I rely on the template in Mentors. Anyway, I
thought the "updated" subject line would do, but it's OK.
My mentor, Daniel Baumann, has decided to stop sponsoring packages. Therefore, I
need someone else to help me out.
> > It builds these binary packages:
> > libitpp-dev - C++ library for signal processing and communication
> > libitpp6 - C++ library for signal processing and communication
>
> (I wish the mentors template would require the long description in RFS
> emails.)
>
> A -dbg package needs to be provided.
> (-dbg packages are likely to become mandatory by Lenny.)
Will look into this.
> There is 500kb of source in the doc/ directory and probably more by the
> time the generated HTML docs are installed - more than enough to
> warrant a -doc package too.
Ah, so here's the trouble. I did _exactly_ that, but my previous sponsor told me
not to do it, since he felt 500 kb didn't warrant a new package, and that the
dev package is almost useless without the docs. But if you insist, so be it.
> With these in place, you can tweak the short descriptions to indicate
> what is contained in each package by only mentioning "C++ library" for
> libitpp6 and adding a suffix of (development files) (debug files)
> (documentation) or something along those lines. Compare with libqof1:
I would request you to elaborate on this. Do you just mean to explain separation
of packages into docs, dev and dbg?
> Some of the content from the Features list at
> http://itpp.sourceforge.net/ needs to be summarised in the
> long description - remove the repeated research section:
[snip]
Will be done.
> Shorten the bit about NEWCOM - mention NEWCOM if you have to, otherwise
> concentrate on what the library can do, not who might be using it
> outside Debian.
Accepted.
> These are trivial to fix:
>
> dpkg-source: warning: file debian/copyright has no final newline (either
original or modified version)
> dpkg-source: warning: file debian/itpp-config.1 has no final newline (either
original or modified version)
> dpkg-source: warning: file debian/changelog has no final newline (either
original or modified version)
> dpkg-source: warning: file debian/libitpp6.docs has no final newline (either
original or modified version)
> dpkg-source: warning: file debian/watch has no final newline (either original
or modified version)
> dpkg-source: warning: file debian/control has no final newline (either
original or modified version)
> dpkg-source: warning: file debian/libitpp-dev.manpages has no final newline
(either original or
> modified version)
Fine.
> Now to the serious stuff:
[snip]
> 2 RC bugs, a dependency on an outdated compiler and a quiet/dead
> upstream have been more than enough to have even a popular package
> removed from a release before now - if that happens to atlas, your
> package will be removed too (especially as libitpp2 only has 6 popcon
> users).
>
> This package has a large dependency tree (127MB of archives). Libraries
> are difficult enough without adding so many dependencies.
I was unaware of the fact that atlas suffered from so many deficiencies.
However, I guess I can drop dependency on atlas (see
http://itpp.sourceforge.net/index.php?wiki=About ), though I'd consult upstream
before doing that.
> Tell me about yourself - how familiar are you with some of the
> dependencies of this package?
I am an "end-user" of this package, and not very familiar with the dependencies.
Therefore, I didn't see the storm brewing.
> I am interested in this package, even though it is clearly outside my
> normal remit of embedded development, but I am also concerned about
> whether it is wise to encourage a package with such problematic
> dependencies.
Well, I'll see what I can do. This will mean redoing a lot of old work, and will
take some time. I guess I'll do this sometime in the next few days.
> >
> > The package is lintian clean.
>
> No, it is not.
>
> W: libitpp source: debian-rules-ignores-make-clean-error line 35
> W: libitpp source: substvar-source-version-is-deprecated libitpp-dev
Got that.
> > I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.
>
> Sorry, not in the current state.
I'll get back to you with a better package.
Thanks for the inputs.
Kumar
Reply to: