Bug#658235: RFS: libjreen, the xmpp library (3rd try, 2 months later)
Dear Benoît,
I'm very thankful for your package review. I've just fixed most of the
things you mentioned. However, there're a couple of moments I'm
unsure.
> I: libjreen1: no-symbols-control-file usr/lib/libjreen.so.1.0.1
There was a long "C++ vs symbols" discussion[1] recently with pros and
contras. I suppose, that symbols really doesn't make sense for C++ and
too hard to maintain (just to create the appropriate symbols file, I
have to somehow upload the package with initial .symbols version, wait
for build fails everywhere, collect buildd logs, and only there I'll
be able to create real .symbols file). For example, dpkg-gensymbols
generates 1633 lines of .symbols for this library.
Are you sure that it's really needed?
> The dh_auto_install override could also be replaced by using
> debian/<package>.install files (see dh_install(1) for details).
I'm unsure that .install is better solution. The one of mine should
work in most cases, even if one change library and package names, I'll
have to change only a package name in dh_auto_install override. In the
case of .install files there would be more work. Am I right?
I've uploaded new version to mentors[2], if you agree with my comments
above, could you review and probably sponsor the fixed version,
please?
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/01/thrd2.html#00671
[2] http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libj/libjreen/libjreen_1.0.1-1.dsc
Best wishes and have a nice day,
Vsevolod Velichko
2012/2/20 Benoît Knecht <benoit.knecht@fsfe.org>:
> Hi Vsevolod,
>
> Vsevolod Velichko wrote:
>> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "libjreen" (and do this for
>> the 3rd time, because I've got no answer, neither positive nor
>> negative since November 2011).
>>
>> * Package name : libjreen
>> Version : 1.0.1-1
>> Upstream Author : Ruslan Nigmatullin <euroelessar@yandex.ru>
>> * URL : http://qutim.org/jreen
>> * License : GPL2+
>> Section : libs
>>
>> It builds those binary packages:
>>
>> libjreen-dev - powerful Jabber/XMPP library - development files
>> libjreen1 - powerful Jabber/XMPP library implemented in Qt/C++
>
> I took a look at your package, here are a few things you may want to
> look into:
>
> - Some warnings from lintian:
>
> I: libjreen source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field "section" in package libjreen1
> P: libjreen source: unversioned-copyright-format-uri http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5
> I: libjreen1: no-symbols-control-file usr/lib/libjreen.so.1.0.1
>
> - In debian/control, your long description repeats the synopsis, and
> it doesn't consist of full sentences. See [1] for guidelines about
> writing good descriptions.
>
> [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-pkg-desc
>
> If you're not using a VCS, you should remove those commented-out
> lines.
>
> - In debian/rules, the dh_installchangelogs override isn't needed;
> debhelper will pick up the upstream changelog automatically.
>
> The dh_auto_install override could also be replaced by using
> debian/<package>.install files (see dh_install(1) for details).
>
> - In debian/copyright, you should use the predefined short names for
> licenses; what you call "MIT/X11 (BSD Like)" is the Expat license.
>
> And even though it's more cosmetic than anything, GPL-2.0+ could be
> replaced by GPL-2+.
>
> I'm also not sure your debian/README.source is particularly
> relevant. First of all, one _should_ care about that copyright in
> Debian since those files are shipped in the source package (so
> clauses about distribution of those files certainly apply). If you
> want to say that the binary package doesn't contain any code from
> these files, perhaps a Comment in the relevant File paragraph in
> debian/copyright would be better (as this file is actually installed
> along with the binary package).
>
> I've built your package, but I haven't installed and tested it, so I
> cannot comment on that.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Benoît Knecht
Reply to: