Re: RFS: solarpowerlog
Am Donnerstag, den 22.12.2011, 19:59 -0200 schrieb Fernando Lemos:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Artur R. Czechowski <arturcz@hell.pl> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:37:36PM +0100, Tobias Frost wrote:
> >> The one warning -- empty-debian-diff -- is emitted as I also keep the debian
> >> files in the git repository I use for development of solarpowerlog. Naturally
> >> the diff is empty in this case.
> >
> > If you are also the upstream developer and you are planning to always keep
> > Debian package with released version in sync, you can consider making the
> > package as a native package.
>
> Just to clarify, this piece of information is completely wrong.
> Quoting the mentors FAQ:
>
> "You should only use a native Debian package when it is clear that the
> package would only ever be of use in Debian. Even if the software is
> currently only available in Debian, if someone could reasonably use
> the software on another distribution or on another operating system,
> then the package should be non-native. A few examples of normal
> packages are: libc6, apache, phpmyadmin. But lintian, dpkg and some
> other tools are purely developed for debian, and make no sense being
> released in another distribution."
>
> It's not a matter of choice. If your package is not Debian-specific,
> it can't and won't be uploaded as a native package.
OK.
I saw this explanation, and I saw the mail from Artur. so I thought
that it *seems* also to be ok. You are the experts in packaging, not me
and I had no reasons not to belive him.
> Now another big problem with your package is that it's using source
> package format 1.0. This is ancient, and for a new package entering
> the repositories, you should probably use format 3.0 (quilt). This
> would make your warning go away as well.
I commited to my repositories today 3.0 (native) after the mail from
Artur when figuring out how to switch to a native format. It read 1.0 as
I probably generated that file back in years ago I forgot to check this
file for updates.
I wonder why lintian did not tell me about this.
However, I already updated it to 3.0 (quilt) and will give it a try
tomorrow.
> Don't try to take shortcuts because you're upstream. When you're
> packaging your software, think of it as if you weren't the upstream
> author. Debian doesn't care if you're the upstream author or not, and
> the tools will complain if you try to take shortcuts. It's crucial to
> keep this in mind.
> Also, although I didn't review your package, I noticed that Vcs-* is
> pointing to your development repositories. It should instead point to
> the repositories where the Debian packaging is hosted (usually in
> Alioth), if it's managed by a VCS at all. Again, development and
> packaging are separate roles.
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-vcs
readed exactly as I need to enter the link to my VCS.
However, in my local copy this lines have already been removed.
> One final piece of advice: please *read* the new maintainers' guide,
> the Debian policy and the mentors FAQ. This is all documented and very
> well explained. I don't mean to sound rude, but the fact that you're
> using format 1.0 and contemplating creating a native package for this
> is indicative that you might have missed simple stuff that's very well
> documented.
This is what I did now for some time. I think the documentation is not
that self-explanatory or otherwise I would have got it right the very
first time. But I think that is why debian has mentors, and why this is
a very good idea.
Of course, I need also to rely on that the information given on this
mailing list is correct and not finding out one response later that I'm
getting blamed for being told wrong information.
> Regards,
>
>
Reply to: