Re: Bug#744045: RFS: xsd/3.3.0.2-1 [ITA]
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Jörg Frings-Fürst
<debian@jff-webhosting.net> wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
>
>
> Am Sonntag, den 20.04.2014, 00:20 -0700 schrieb Vincent Cheng:
>> Hi Jörg,
>>
>> Please don't forget to cc your RFS bug (#744045).
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 7:31 AM, Jörg Frings-Fürst
>> <debian@jff-webhosting.net> wrote:
>> > Hallo,
>> >
> [...]
>> > Am Samstag, den 12.04.2014, 01:12 -0700 schrieb Vincent Cheng:
>> >> Control: tag -1 + moreinfo
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Jörg Frings-Fürst
>> >> <debian@jff-webhosting.net> wrote:
>> >> > Package: sponsorship-requests
>> >> > Severity: normal [important for RC bugs, wishlist for new packages]
>> >> >
>> > [...]
>>
>> Here's a laundry list of things that can be improved in your packaging:
>>
>> - debian/copyright should contain per-file license information (if
>> this was a NEW package, it would get rejected by ftpmasters for
>> failing this), e.g. not all files are under GPLv2; some are public
>> domain, like xsd/examples/cxx/parser/hello/driver.cxx). I suggest
>> using DEP-5 [1] to ease the task of documenting this, but free-form
>> debian/copyright is still ok as long as everything is documented. You
>> can also take advantage of licensecheck (from the devscripts package),
>> but you'll still have to manually check the source.
> I have debian/copyright completely revised and all source - files
> checked for the license.
Line 203 - you should specify the version of the GFDL that's used
(i.e. 1.2). Also, the license block that accompanies it says GPLv2 for
some reason (please fix). Don't forget to mention in the license block
that the license used is GFDL w/ no invariant sections/front
cover/back cover texts (otherwise it'd be considered non-free in
Debian).
>> - collapse your debian/changelog entries into a single entry; I'd
>> suggest versioning your current package as 3.3.0.2-1, leaving the
>> "+dep" out
> done
>
>> - your watch file is broken:
>>
>> $ uscan --report-status
>> Processing watchfile line for package xsd...
>> Newest version on remote site is 3.3.0-2+, local version is 3.3.0.2+dep
>> xsd: remote site does not even have current version
> corrected
>
>> - remove Vcs-Arch from debian/control (see Policy 5.6.26 [2] for what
>> it's actually supposed to be used for)
> I have no access to alioth. So I have the source saved on lauchpad.net
> and the VCS - Entries point to this archive.
Vcs-* entries in d/control are not mandatory (nothing wrong with
hosting on LP, but you can omit them if you want).
Ping me once you have a guest alioth account setup (you can do this at
your leisure) and I can help you get access to collab-maint.
>> - (pedantic) removing the unnecessary quilt build-dep and running
>> wrap-and-sort to have the build-deps listed in alphabetical order
>> would be nice
> done
>
>> - (pedantic) I'd suggest not overriding lintian tags that are actually
>> valid (no-upstream-changelog, debian-watch-may-check-gpg-signature);
>> you can safely just ignore those tags instead
> no-upstream-changelog and debian-watch-may-check-gpg-signature removed
>
>> - (pedantic) debian/rules: compress (gzip) your installed manpage and
>> changelog (or use dh_install{man,docs} which would do that for you,
>> instead of a single override_dh_auto_install target)
> I have removed some unnecessary lines
>
>> Also, is there a timeline on when you plan on tackling the issues in
>> debian/TODO (i.e. are you waiting for some changes to be made
>> upstream, or is it just lack of time that's hindering you for now,
>> etc.)?
> My opinion was the lib* take into separate packages with the coming
> upstream version. But all lib* come without any install function . So
> I've delete the TODO file.
The fact that the embedded libraries come without a standalone build
system (is that what you mean by "install function"?) shouldn't be the
deciding factor (nothing's stopping you from splitting up the package
into multiple binary packages and installing everything in the right
place manually). What should be the deciding factor is whether there's
really any use for those libraries outside of xsd. Ultimately it's
your decision, as xsd's maintainer, whether you want to split up the
package or not.
> The new revision can be found on [1].
One more thing...I can't find any xz-compressed tarballs on upstream's
website, only bz2-compressed ones, so I'm assuming that you've
repacked the tarball for some reason? Please don't repack tarballs
without a good reason (e.g. removing non-DFSG-compatible / non-free
files). If you need to repack them, please implement a get-orig-source
target in debian/rules (see policy 4.9 [1]), otherwise please use
upstream's unmodified tarball as your source tarball.
Regards,
Vincent
[1] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html
Reply to: