Re: RFS: opus, uuwaf
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi Vincent,
Thanks for your reply.
[uuwaf issues]
> LGPL v4 does not exist ;-) But your debian/copyright is correct. You
> might want to add the path to LGPL license on Debian systems (like you
> did for GPLv2).
Oops, yes. :-). I will update the copyright file yes.
> About changelog, you should capitalize sentences and don't leave blank
> lines between each point.
Ok, so noted.
> In debian/control, I think that Vcs-Svn is waiting for an URL, not a
> command. Just keep svn://... You may want to just depend on php5 which
> already depends on what is needed. You might want to keep php5-cli only
> if your package needs to launch php in cron.d (for example). It seems
> this is not the case.
Quite right, it's the other package that does this, well spotted.
> You should also add a debian/watch file.
Sure.
> I don't really understand why you did split the package into two binary
> packages. Why not just put everything in uuwaf? Why would people only
> install uuwaf? If they want to configure database themselves,
> dbconfig-common will ask them about this.
The reason is that some other applications we have depend upon the
framework, but don't use the preferences system. For example, we have a
system that brokers exchanges between our systems and the university
infrastructure - via webservices, it has a very simple UI for testing
and debugging, but doesn't use the preferences system.
[opus issues]
> Same remarks for changelog, control and copyright. I suppose that you
> should keep php5-cli here because of cron.d entry.
Yes, thanks.
> You embed tinymce. This is considered a bad thing. You should try to use
> Debian tinymce and depends on it. If you need tinymce 3, that's fine,
> this is the one currently in Debian. If you need tinymce 2, I am working
> on it with tinymce maintainers.
Actually, I just noticed the tinymce in the archive after that
packaging, I already have a new version that uses tinymce, but wanted to
see what other issues there would be before another upload. Thanks for
the heads up though.
> You should use ucf as you did for uuwaf to handle
> debconf_config.php. This would allow the user to edit the file. Deleting
> a file in /etc without advicing the user is considered bad practice
> (even if you put a warning at the top of the file).
Good point.
> I think that you should use invoke-rc.d to restart apache if needed:
>
> if [ -x /usr/sbin/invoke-rc.d ]; then
> invoke-rc.d $webserver restart
> else
> /etc/init.d/$webserver restart
> fi
>
> You could also look at how other webapps are doing (roundcube,
> squirrelmail, mediawiki, [put your favorite web app here]; we are
> sharing a lot of snippet that should go into webapps-common). You could
> also look at the draft for packaging webapps:
> http://webapps-common.alioth.debian.org/draft/html/
Thanks, that's very helpful.
> Note that configuring old Apache v1 may be considered unwelcome since
> Debian is not shipping Apache v1 any more. You may want to read this for
> the rationale:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=434050
Ironically, my original packaging didn't support it and it was suggested
by a friendly DD that I add it. I'm more than happy to remove it in
fact, since my userbase is likely to be mainly fresh installs in any case.
> Since you can break the webserver configuration by using Alias directive
> in Apache configuration, you should leave it commented. If the user
> wants to respect your alias, he will uncomment it.
That's a tricky one. I am fighting in a background where almost everyone
wanting to install my app asks about doing it on Windows. I've explained
that will be harder, and I recommend Debian as the "easy" solution. I've
been gratified that several folks have installed Debian from scratch,
and my unofficial packages with either no, or very little help.
Problem is, some of these folks will seriously find dealing with these
kinds of text files in an editor to be non-trivial, so it will reduce
the people who will even bother. Opinions?
> You have a bogus postinst/postrm. It is better to remove them.
I do? Both scripts seem to do important stuff to me, no?
> You might want to contact debian-l10n-english to proofread description
> and debconf questions. For debconf questions, this will be done later,
> you will save translator time by asking now.
Ok, I can do that.
> About cookie secret, I think that you should generate one randomly if
> the user does not provide one. What happens if the field is left blank?
Good idea, it's been on my mental todo list for too long.
> About opus-doc, you ship generated latex files:
> debian/opus-doc/usr/share/doc/opus-doc/docs/latex/opus_manual.ind
> debian/opus-doc/usr/share/doc/opus-doc/docs/latex/opus_manual.toc.gz
Ack, that's stupid, thanks.
> You should not even put source files into this package. Just put PDF
> file.
Ok, I'm going to rewrite this for September, and it's shockingly
incomplete anyway, so I might just remove it for now.
Thanks so much for all your input, that gives me some stuff to work on.
CT.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFILuNp0SwfPjLnaZYRAh3JAKCMHG5EvSRPUt0o+AEXbGqh0hXRhQCgr8L5
5GQuAa2RuJo1ZF88NB1BJzQ=
=ih9h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: