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

Bug#658432: RFS: xeji [ITA] -- Yet Another Follow the Mouse X demo

Thanks for your quick reply, Arno.

"Arno Töll" <debian@toell.net> wrote:

>Hash: SHA1
>tags 658432 +moreinfo +wontfix
>Hi Daniel,
>On 02.02.2012 23:45, Daniel Martí wrote:
>> dget -x
>> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xeji/xeji_1.2-15.dsc
>First let me point out, I don't see much reasons to upload this
>package to Debian (not that I could anyway). It was orphaned and
>should rather be removed than uploaded. You even say yourself your
>primary purpose is to learn packaging [1], hence I'd suggest you to
>pick a package you really care for instead.

Of course. I did not know packages could be left aside for that reason; thanks for pointing that out 

>The package you picked has a low popcon [2] no reverse dependencies
>and seems generally not helpful at all. That said, if you really want
>to maintain this package that's up to you. Here is a review:
>* You modified the orig.tar.gz tarball somehow:
>$ md5sum deb-version/xeji_1.2.orig.tar.gz
>afc838ca6174ac98d67b1580832e24d4  deb-version/xeji_1.2.orig.tar.gz
>68893c38485b8063cdd6fbe81da76e11  mentors-version/xeji_1.2.orig.tar.gz
>That's not acceptable, especially since the tarball was already
>uploaded to Debian archives. Thus, you are not allowed to change the
>tarball anymore, once it was uploaded without pushing a new upstream

Hmm, I don't know what happened there. I don't recall modifying orig.tar.gz.

>Feel free to remove the "wontfix" tag once you addressed the tarball
>issue. Everything else is of lower importance.

Since I won't adopt this package, should I re-orphan it and close this bug? Or is there something else I should do?

>* debian/compat 6 is somewhat outdated these days. Joey released
>debehelper 9 just recently. Note, using compat 6 is not a tragedy, but
>you would profit from using compat 7 or higher a lot.
>* The synopsis line of the package is not really helpful (yet another
><whatever> does not help anyone) and does not match our guidelines [3].
>* You use the old copyright format, consider upgrading to DEP-5
>instead (that's optional of course).
>* Why do you install manpages manually in debian/rules? You should use
>dh_installman instead. This makes both, the install rule and the
>"dirs" file unneeded.
>* You should use the short dh form. Check [5] and dh(1) for examples.
>Most people consider the old-style debhelper form deprecated. While
>you are it, remove the source and diff targets. They are obsolete
>since ages it appears.
>* The package breaks the hardening release goal [6]. See [7] to learn
>how to apply hardening flags.
>* Since you upgraded to 3.0/quilt there is no point to add manpages as
>a patch anymore. Just put the file into debian/ and install it as I
>outlined above.
>* patches/xeji_c.patch misses an appropriate DEP-3 header (that's
>optional again)
>* Don't override I: and W: tags in Lintian. Moreover, note your
>explanation for overriding
>"copyright-should-refer-to-common-license-file-for-gpl" is wrong.
>That's not what the tag is about.
>* Remove the README.Debian file. The URL is dead and its information
>is redundant to debian/copyright.

Thanks for the feedback. Apart from the switch to quilt, all the comments above refer to stuff that the old maintainer did without much documentation.

>[1] bugs.debian.org/592977
>[2] http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=xeji
>[4] http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/
>[5] /usr/share/doc/debhelper/examples/rules.tiny
>[6] http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/SecurityHardeningBuildFlags
>[7] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2011/09/msg00001.html
>[8] http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/
>- -- 
>with kind regards,
>Arno Töll
>IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC
>GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
>Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
>Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

Reply to: