Re: RFS: ocropus (3nd try)
Hello Jeffrey,
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 22:01, Jeffrey Ratcliffe
<jeffrey.ratcliffe@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ocropus".
I'm giving the package a look, and here are my comments:
- please remove "XS-DM-Upload-Allowed" field (that should be called
"DM-Upload-Allowed", since it's official now), since it's something
usually asked by the sponsor after he/she is comfortable with your
"autonomous" work.
- "Document" in short description should be uncapitalized: think at it
like <package> is a <short description>
- I don't know if it's importa (but may exist some backoffice tool
that cares about uppercases), but I'd uncapitalize the email address
in the maintainer field
- please explain what OCR is in the long description, so that even
un-experienced users may understand what the package does
- in long description "OCRopus is development is sponsored by Google"
i think it's better "OCRopus development is sponsored by Google", what
about?
- you don't usually need "usr/bin" in debian/dirs (it's usually
created by install steps)
- what about include in debian/ocroscript.1 the options listed at
http://sites.google.com/site/ocropus/documentation ? consider the
situation where a user has no net connection and still wants to use
ocroscript. And repeating the long description in the manpage adds no
information to the users: please expand it to be usefull and please
forward then upstream (so that they can include in the next release).
- please add a debian/watch file, "man uscan" for examples
- since you claim to be "Standards-Version: 3.8.0" and using a patch
system, you have to add a debian/README.source explaining how you
patch the upstream source code (for a quilt example, take a look at
matplotlib package).
- patches have no documentation about what they do; dpatch added a "#
DP: " line where you can explain what the patch does (along with other
information like the patch author), do you mind add such information
(to be clear about the patch scope)?
- given that "debian/patches/distclean" added some files to be deleted
by upstream distclean target, and "clean: unpatch" this means that the
patch is removed before clean target in debian/rules is called, hence
invalidating the patch. One solution could be add another target:
clean: clean-patched unpatch
clean-patched: patch-stamp
<commands for the clean target>
- It's usually better depends on patch-stamp (or the exported quilt
variable, check man quilt) instead of patch, so please fix build-stamp
target
- you can merge the "rm -f" lines into dh_clean call (they do the same thing)
- do you need dh_installexamples and dh_install in binary-arch target ?
- please indent the "upstream authors" section in debian/copyright by
4 spaces, and expand (or remove) "... and several others."
- License section is indeed the copyright one
- please add the correct license section, referring to apache-2.0,
adding the apache license boilerplate (as visible in
./ocrocmd/version.h)
- since you claim that your packaging is gplv3, and so are the patches
you wrote, are you sure that those patches can be applied to
apache-2.0 source code? please check. That's the reason we usually
suggest to license the packaging under the same license as upstream
code.
- you completely missed to add information about "External Software"
in debian/copyright
- please check *every* source file: ./ocrocmd/version.h has a
different copyright year, and many others (2006-2008 seems to be the
right years); ./colib/nbest.h (and with it, many other) has different
copyright holder, and you have to list them in the debian/copyright
file; ext/lua/lua.h (and all the related files) has different
copyright holder and license: please add them too and check the
license is compatible with apache-2.0.
I can continue with many other files: please check the whole
upstream tarball, *every* files, (I exec, from the root level, "find .
-type f -exec less {} \;") and report all the copyright and license
information differing from the "main" ones and whether they are
compatible each other.
- lintian reports some warning:
$ lintian -I ../pbuilder/result/ocropus_0.2*changes
I: ocropus source: debian-watch-file-is-missing
I: ocropus: arch-dep-package-has-big-usr-share 10924kB 78%
what about creating a "ocropus-common" package to contain all those
architecture independent files?
Please reply in case of questions and once you have uploaded an
updated package to mentors (no need to bump revision).
Kindly,
--
Sandro Tosi (aka morph, Morpheus, matrixhasu)
My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
Reply to: