Re: RFS: Sponsor needed for pmwiki
On 07/04/2011 09:17 AM, Strobl, Robert wrote:
> I need a sponsor for:
>
> Package name: pmwiki
> Version: 2.2.27
> Upstream Author: Patrick R. Michaud
> License: GPL
> Description: "PmWiki is a wiki-based system for collaborative creation and maintenance of websites."
>
> The relevant files can be found at http://share.gloriabyte.de/pmwiki/
>
> This would close: #330117, #471816, #508725
>
> Best regards,
> Robert
>
Hi,
I 100% love pmwiki. I use and abuse it. I'll review your package and
sponsor it for sure.
Now, I just had a look to the remarks by Arno Toll, and I agree with
(most of) them.
Please clean the package and let us know when it is ready.
Here's few remarks on the remarks of Arno:
> + Instead of your dependency line "apache2 | lighttpd" you probably
> want to depend on the httpd-cgi virtual package [2] instead, and give a
> preference if you wish.
I'd rather say: don't depend AT ALL on a web server. This is very annoying
in some situations, and it's not your job to decide, but the one of the
administrator. I have a situation here where I am using php5-cgi with no
web server at all (because it's in a chroot), and having a dependency on
a web server is *very* annoying.
> + Finally php-fastcgi seems wrong to me unless you actually depend on
> Lighttpd or any other (Fast-)CGI compatible web server. For Apache you
> maybe want to depend on libapache2-mod-php5 instead, since this is what
> most people are using for PHP when using Apache.
Again, it's not your job to select a flavor for PHP. You just should
depend on
the largest possible choice, so maybe something like:
"libapache2-mod-php5 | php5-cgi"
would do.
> * You debian/copyright contains the full URL, i.e. the direct link to
> the origin package. Its not wrong to do so, but keep in mind you have to
> update this for every upload. Generally its fine enough to point to the
> upstream homepage there. There is also DEP-5 [6] which is perhaps the
> way to go for future packages. This not required though.
While dep5 isn't required by Debian, it is required by *me* when I sponsor
a package. So please use that format.
> * Your package contains GIF files. There are some discussions whether
> they fall into the "preferred form for modification" rule as they are
> binary data [14]. However I believe for your use case its fine to
> package them. Maybe someone else may comment on this.
If there are some ways to generate the GIF files from some other source
code, then yes, it should be done this way. Otherwise, GIF files can be
considered "upstream source" as well. Since the GIF patent expired, GIF
aren't less good than PNG or others, and it's ok to use them.
> * Your package is not lintian clean (this shouldn't suprise you):
Yes. Please use lintian and check that you clean absolutely ALL of the
issues
that lintian is pointing at. Remember to use the -Ii flags when calling
it, so
it shows really all.
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Reply to: