Re: RFS: witty
Quoting Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org>:
OoO Vers la fin de l'après-midi du jeudi 29 mai 2008, vers 16:32, Pau
Garcia i Quiles <pgquiles@elpauer.org> disait:
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "witty".
* Package name : witty
Version : 2.1.3-1
Upstream Author : Emweb bvba <info@emweb.be>
* URL : http://webtoolkit.eu/
* License : GPLv2 + commercial
Section : web
It builds these binary packages:
witty - C++ web framework and application server [runtime]
witty-dbg - C++ web framework and application server [debug]
witty-dev - C++ web framework and application server [devel]
witty-doc - C++ web framework and application server [doc]
Hi!
About the short description, upstream author states that Wt is not a
framework but a library. Since this seems important, maybe you should
avoid the word framework at least in short description.
Fixed. That's a quite recent change in the homepage (since Wt 2.1.2).
The description in my package was wrong because "framework" has been
there since I started providing packages of Wt (August 2007, version 2.0.3).
In debian/control, Vcs-Cvs is oddly formatted. Moreover, this field is
for Debian package managenement, not upstream CVS.
Removed
You seems to hardcode a lot of libraries in Depends, I think this is not
necessary: this is the job of shlibs:Depends.
Fixed
About debian/copyright, upstream ships a LICENSE file but does not tell
if the software is licensed under GPLv2 or GPLv2+. You should tell
upstream that a statement stating the actual license is necessary (as
explained at the bottom of LICENSE file).
I'd say it's clear it's only GPLv2 but I've requested upstream that
they state the license explicitly
More important, you add a patch to add OpenSSL exception. You should not
do that. On what ground do you assume that such an exception exists?
Upstream should add it in some file.
I requested upstream to include the OpenSSL exception, it's already in CVS and
the next Wt version (2.1.4) will include it in the LICENSE file.
The content of how_to_build_examples.txt should be put in README.Debian
instead since this is Debian specific information.
Done
You can simplify debian/rules by using debian/witty-doc.examples,
debian/witty-doc.docs.
Given that "make install" does not install examples or documentation,
will that work? I'd say it will not, so, should I keep my debian/rules
or modify upstream's "make install" ?
You might also want to use dh_lintian to install lintian override (look
at the manual page, it requires a special version of debhelper).
Done
lintian
override on witty-doc should be removed. You should remove those two
extra licenses instead.
Do you mean removing them from the .orig.tar.gz?
You should use a patch management system instead of patching
yourself. Such a system will handle cleaning for you (your package does
not build twice in a row because you don't clean your patch). You can
look at quilt that contains a simple line to add to debian/rules and two
new targets to patch and unpatch.
Done. I'm using dpatch now.
You can safely remove CFLAGS settings in debian/rules, this is now
handled by dpkg-buildpackage.
Fixed
Your debian/watch is not working for me. You should use http://sf.net
instead of http://downloads.sourceforge.net.
Fixed
Two more lintian warnings:
W: witty: deprecated-chown-usage postinst:25 'chown -R www-data.www-data'
Fixed
W: witty source: debian-watch-file-missing-version
It was versioned but it looks like lintian does not understand spaces:
"version = 3" fails, "version=3" works fine
--
Pau Garcia i Quiles
http://www.elpauer.org
(Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer)
Reply to: