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

Re: RFS: dbxml

Hi Daniel,

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:49:27AM +0200, Daniel de Kok wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 8:21 AM, Daniel de Kok <me@danieldk.eu> wrote:
> > 2011/6/24 Lars Buitinck <larsmans@gmail.com>:
> >> 2011/6/24 Michael Tautschnig <mt@debian.org>:
> >>> Well, after a long while I got around to review this package. Here are my
> >>> observations:
> >>>
> >>> - debian/README.source isn't actually helpful...
> >>> - There is no libdb4.8++-dev in sid. It's libdb5.1++-dev now.
> >>> - Having installed that, configure fails nevertheless:
> >>>  configure: error: /usr not a valid Berkeley DB tree.  Note that Berkeley DB
> >>>  must be configured and built with '--enable-cxx'.
> >>>
> >>> Other than this, the package would look fine. Hence if you could figure out how
> >>> to update for 5.1, I'd offer to re-review the package (in a more timely
> >>> manner!).
> >>
> >> Thanks for the review. I've dropped my work on dbxml due to a change
> >> of jobs, but my former colleague Daniël de Kok (cc) has taken over.
> >> He's found that dbxml works fine with BDB 5.1, producing
> >> backward-compatible files. Greg Burd, formerly of Oracle, has
> >> confirmed that this should be the case in general
> >> (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/157165/comments/20).
> >
> > I have uploaded dbxml_2.5.16-3 to mentors.debian.net:
> >
> > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dbxml/
> >
> > This version builds agains Berkeley DB 5.1. I have also converted the
> > package to a multi-arch package.
> If someone else is willing to sponsor this package, that would be
> great as well! I have two other packages in the pipeline that depend
> on dbxml ;).

Have you already verified that the Oracle License is actually DFSG-free? It
might help to convert debian/copyright to DEP-5 to see more easily which
files are affected. Is this license used by any packages in Debian already?

Your *.dsc was broken and couldn't check out with its signature btw..

Apart from that I only would prefer to have a -1 without a patch for the
initial upload so that I won't have to "repackage" your upload to make it
fit for putting into the archive.

Some more technical findings:

- Have you thought about adding a *.symbols file?

- libdbxml-dev doesn't need ${shlibs:Depends} btw. - it's arch all.

- Your source lacks a debian/watch. Please add one.

- You will need to repackage as DFSG-free at least due to 
  dbxml/build_windows/ and db-4.8.26/docs/csharp,
  db-4.8.26/dist/winmsi/s_winmsi.fcn, db-4.8.26/docs_src/ref/install

  You may want to try suspicious-source from the ubuntu-dev-tools as a
  start. All binary files that are not built from source must be removed
  (unless they are a binary format that is ok with good reason - like a PDF
  or the *.DB sample file)

- Your Standards-Version should be bumped to 3.9.2 just for completeness

- Please add lintian override for
  W: dbxml source: package-needs-versioned-debhelper-build-depends 9

- Please add a doc-base registration of your API

- Your debian/copyright misses some licenses. There's at least missing:
  + PHP 2.0.2
  + BSD 4 clause
  + zlib/libpng
  + Public Domain
  + Artistic
  + GPL
  + Perl
  + BSD 2 clause
  + GPL-2

Once you have at least looked into these (and maybe found even more) send me
the updated package and I'll have another look and upload if it's ok.

Best regards,

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: