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

Re: RFR: blogofile -- Static website compiler and blog engine



Hi Ben,

thanks for your comments, I will look into it in the next few days.


Kind regards,
Andreas



Am Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:19:09 +1100
schrieb Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au>:

> Andreas Rütten <AndreasRuetten@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > this is a RFR (Request For Review) for my blogofile package. 
> 
> Thank you for working on this package, I am looking forward to its
> addition to Debian.
> 
> > - Since a few days the watch file included isn't working. Probably
> > this is because of a change of the GitHub frontend on October 12th
> > (see https://github.com/blog/958-the-code-tab). I informed Gunnar
> > Wolf about this because he is the maintainer of githubredir.d.n.
> 
> I don't understand the redirector. I also don't use Github.
> 
> Here is a watchfile that worked for me to get the latest tag as a
> tarball:
> 
>     # watch control file for uscan
>     version=3
> 
>     opts=filenamemangle=s/.+\/tarball\/(.+)$/blogofile-$1\.tar\.gz/ \
>         https://github.com/EnigmaCurry/blogofile/tags/ /EnigmaCurry/blogofile/tarball/(.+)
> 
> Someone else here may suggest a better configuration. Or maybe the
> redirector will be fixed soon.
> 
> > - There is no upstream changelog file. Lintian complains about it. 
> >    - Is it right, that a missing upstream changelog file is not a
> >      strict must have and it will not preventing the package to be
> >      included into Debian?
> 
> Correct. You should explicitly acknowledge the lack of a changelog by
> adding a Lintian override for that warning. Explain why in a comment
> to the override.
> 
> > - Lintian complains about an extra-license-file. I included this
> > file because the upstream LICENSE.txt contains beside the actual
> > Expat (MIT) license some thoughts from the Author about his view on
> > the license an Free Software in general.
> >    - Should it be included or removed from the package?
> 
> Good question. Sadly the author has decided to use that file for some
> non-license information. You could make a request to the upstream
> developers to put that non-license information in a separate file.
> 
> > - The package builds fine with debuild respectively dpkg-buildpacke
> > but not with pbuilder or cowbuilder. That's sound for me that there
> > are missing build dependencies but unfortunately I couldn't identify
> >   which one until now.
> 
> The failures should tell you what the dependencies are. You might want
> to discuss them on the Python forum for Debian.
> 
> > - My resulting package contains a blogofile.egg-info directory. I'm
> > not sure if it's needed for the runtime of blogofile or only during
> > the build of the package. I ask on #debian-mentors and got that
> > there is no clear answer to this. Sometimes a package need
> > the .egg-info directory at runtime and sometimes not.
> >    - Do you know if it's needed or not?
> >    - Can somebody explain my how to identify this point?
> 
> Ask that question on the Debian Python forum also. There is a standard
> way to instruct the build system to install the package
> Debian-friendly.
> 
> > - Suggest or recommend a VCS, or explicitly git?
> >   Blogofile itself will greatly work without any Version Control
> >   System, but there are these two points:
> 
> I think you should not favour any particular VCS.
> 
> Since you say the package is useable without any VCS, there should be
> none in the Depends field. The Recommends field should list them all
> as alternatives (so it is satisfied by any one of them), and the
> Suggests field should list all of them together.
> 
> > - What do you think about shipping the example site as .zip file in
> > the Debian package?
> 
> Perhaps unpack it, and install it as a separate binary package (maybe
> ‘blogofile-examples’).
> 
> > - Should they go into a separate -data package?
> 
> Not that name, that would imply that it's *necessary* data for the
> package, which is not true.
> 
> > Thank you for keep reading up to here. Again any review, comment,
> > help or hints are really welcome.
> 
> Thanks for your perseverence.
> 



-- 
Andreas Rütten
mailto : AndreasRuetten@gmx.de
PGP, 6C9DFFB2, 8394 99DA 59BD BCE2 3FC8  3A9E 6633 0089 6C9D FFB2
--

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: