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

Re: RFS: packagekit

On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Matthias Klumpp <matthias@nlinux.org> wrote:

> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit/packagekit_0.6.7-1.dsc

A review as promised...

The copyright situation is much more complex than what you present in
debian/copyright. Please look at each file and fully document the
license situation. It is possible to have a per-binary-package
copyright file, which you might want to do since the libraries are
licensed differently.

Why do you need to build in a subdirectory? Seems like it complicates
the debian/rules file for no benefit. You can drop many of the flags
from DEB_BASIC_AUTOTOOLS_FLAGS by using dh_auto_configure --
make vs dh_auto_install.

Why do you move the upstream helper scripts to /usr/lib?

Not sure that patch removal stuff is a good idea. Better to fix
upstream to not include generated files in the tarball.

Can the ln -s can be achieved with dh_link instead?

The watch file isn't quite as specific as it could be, I would replace
(.*) with ([\d\.]+) and drop the blank line.

Why is most of 01_set_defaults.patch needed? Shouldn't we only need to
change the iceweasel thing?

02_update_aptcc.patch is a pretty big patch, has it been applied upstream yet?

For the URLs in 00_set_vendor.patch I would suggest creating new pages
in the PackageKit namespace on the wiki focused on what PackageKit
needs from them and based on what other distros have in the equivalent
pages. Then make those pages CategoryPermalink.

I wonder if the s/emblem-favorite/distributor-logo/ part of
00_set_vendor.patch should be forwarded upstream.

The browser plugin package naming has changed recently, they should no
longer be called mozilla-* but browser-plugin-* or xul-ext-* IIRC.

Is the smart backend useful in Debian? I can't see smart in Debian.

The upstream README duplicates the information from debian/control,
drop it from debian/docs.

Please add explanations to README.Debian about why things aren't shipped.

Would it be a good idea to turn on unit tests? That would help ensure
the package works on all arches.

Which features of PackageKit in Fedora will not work in Debian?

An automated warning:

configure: WARNING: Distro upgrade notification not supported

The package FTBFS in pbuilder:

running CONFIG_SHELL=/bin/sh /bin/sh ../configure --prefix=/usr
--includedir=${prefix}/include --mandir=${prefix}/share/man
--infodir=${prefix}/share/info --sysconfdir=/etc --localstatedir=/var
--libexecdir=${prefix}/lib/packagekit --disable-dependency-tracking
--disable-silent-rules --disable-static --enable-introspection
--enable-gtk-doc --disable-cron --enable-apt --enable-aptcc
--enable-smart --disable-local --disable-tests
--with-default-backend=aptcc --enable-browser-plugin
--enable-gtk-module --enable-gstreamer-plugin
--enable-command-not-found --disable-dummy
PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/home/pabs/opt/lib/pkgconfig CFLAGS=-g -O2 LDFLAGS=
CPPFLAGS= CXXFLAGS=-g -O2 --no-create --no-recursion
configure: WARNING: unrecognized options: --enable-introspection
checking for a BSD-compatible install... /usr/bin/install -c
checking whether build environment is sane... yes
checking for a thread-safe mkdir -p... /bin/mkdir -p
checking for gawk... no
checking for mawk... mawk
checking whether make sets $(MAKE)... yes
checking how to create a ustar tar archive... gnutar
../configure: line 3493: syntax error near unexpected token `0.6.7'
../configure: line 3493: `GOBJECT_INTROSPECTION_CHECK(0.6.7)'
make[1]: *** [config.status] Error 2
make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
lib/packagekit-glib2/Makefile.am:234: HAVE_INTROSPECTION does not
lib/packagekit-glib2/Makefile.am:241: addprefix $(srcdir: non-POSIX
variable name
lib/packagekit-glib2/Makefile.am:241: (probably a GNU make extension)
make[1]: *** [../Makefile.in] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/packagekit-0.6.7/build'
dh_auto_build: make -j2 returned exit code 2
make: *** [build] Error 2
dpkg-buildpackage: error: debian/rules build gave error exit status 2



Reply to: