Re: RFS: l2tp-ipsec-vpn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi Werner,
I was taking a look into your package, here are some comments on it (as
usual, I am pointing out I can't sponsor you, as I'm not developer).
On 19.06.2011 07:55, Werner Jaeger wrote:
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "l2tp-ipsec-vpn".
* In debian/changelog - just a minor stylistic note: it is considered
best practice to denote bug numbers in parenthesis e.g. "(Closes:
#602504)" [see also 1].
* Please remove debian/changelog.org from your source package. This
seems to be your Ubuntu changelog. You don't have to remove it entirely,
just make sure it does not appear in Debian source packages to avoid
confusion. Same holds for control.org.
* debian/compat + debian/control indicate debhelper compatibility 7.
We're on version 8 now, please bump both to 8.0 (see debhelper(1)).
* Your standards version is not entirely up to date. Please check
whether your package complies with 3.9.2 and bump it in your control
file afterwards [4].
* It is best practice to denote VCS fields in your control file. Learn
more on [5]
* Your synopsis line reads fine, the long description however is a bit
unclear. Imagine a user wants to find out, what your package is about
and the first thing he learns is "This GUI is not a network manager
plug-in". You don't have to describe every feature either, especially
not every button available in your GUI. Just make sure you provide a
comprehensive, but short description what your program is about in first
place.
* In debian/copyright the "Format" link is broken. No, that's not your
fault, this is due to the recent Alioth migration. Perhaps update it
anyway.
* You certainly can, but its not required to point the exact release in
"Source" fields in debian/copyright. If you do, make sure you don't
forget to update this link for every Debian release though.
* Your postinst script looks a bit problematic. First of all, you
silently assume gksu is installed but you don't depend on it. Moreover
I'm not entirely sure you should really (re-)start your application in
postinst. Since it is a GUI application there are plenty of corner cases
where the user you think would be the GUI user, actually isn't. If you
really want to do such magic, perhaps restart your application for the
user owning the old PID.
* What's your rationale to delete
/usr/share/applications/L2TP-Ipsec-VPN-Manager.desktop in postrm?
Shoudln't you ship this desktop file with your package and thus letting
dpkg take care of it? The deletion of
/etc/xdg/autostart/L2tpIPsecVpn.desktop is also problematic (or even
more). /etc isn't considered a package's domain, but of the site
administrator. You shall not alter any files there without explicit
permission of the administrator. This includes deletion of files, see
§10.7.3 [2][3]. Here I advocate again to let dpkg handle treatment of
this file. Ultimately its the user's choice whether he wants to keep
this file or purge the package.
* In debian/rules please don't set DH_VERBOSE on release packages. Its
fine to do for your debugging purposes, but comment it out on packages
you want to have uploaded. Note, some people don't agree here, and this
is a cosmetic change after all.
* Your package fails to build from source in a clean chroot:
g++ -c -m64 -pipe -O2 -Wall -W -D_REENTRANT -DQT_NO_DEBUG -DQT_GUI_LIB
- -DQT_NETWORK_LIB -DQT_CORE_LIB -DQT_SHARED
- -I/usr/share/qt4/mkspecs/linux-g++-64 -Inbproject
- -I/usr/include/qt4/QtCore -I/usr/include/qt4/QtNetwork
- -I/usr/include/qt4/QtGui -I/usr/include/qt4 -Isrc -I/usr/include/qt4
- -Isrc/generated -Isrc/generated -I. -o
build/Release/GNU-Linux-x86/OpensslConfWriter.o
src/conf/OpensslConfWriter.cpp
In file included from /usr/include/ctemplate/template.h:50:0,
from src/conf/OpensslConfWriter.cpp:25:
/usr/include/ctemplate/template_dictionary.h:73:11: error: 'ptrdiff_t'
does not name a type
make[2]: *** [build/Release/GNU-Linux-x86/OpensslConfWriter.o] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/l2tp-ipsec-vpn-0.9.9'
make[1]: *** [override_dh_auto_build] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/l2tp-ipsec-vpn-0.9.9'
make: *** [build] Error 2
dpkg-buildpackage: error: debian/rules build gave error exit status 2
I'm not entirely sure, whether YOU are to blame here. You have to find
out though :>
> This is not my first request but so far I did not get any response. Is there anything else I
> should be doing ?
Unfortunately not. Just keep it trying every once in a while until you
either find a sponsor or you are scared off. You can improve your
chances to find a sponsor by asking maintainer of related packages
directly (e.g., in your case IPSec related stuff), they might be
interested to sponsor you. Not everyone is reading debian-mentors.
[1]
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#upload-bugfix
[2] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html#s-config-files
[3] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ap-pkg-conffiles.html
[4] http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/upgrading-checklist.txt
[5]
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-vcs
- --
with kind regards,
Arno Töll
IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC
GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=P9+X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: