Bug#741648: RFS: cbootimage/1.2-2
Hi Marc, how are you?
We need begin anew. So, I will analyse the packages from zero.
In a first moment, we will work over cbootimage-configs only. Please:
1. The g GIT commit was on 2014-08-06. So, the version must be
0.0+20140806~git18e531f (I prefer git instead 'g').
2. d/changelog: you need an ITP number.
3. d/control: you need a VCS to control your packaging. I think that
already told you about it. Ask me if you have doubt.
4. d/copyright: you need remake this file. A short example is that you
didn't told about build/* directory. Please, read (really) about
'copyright' here[1]. As a tip, if your main upstream is Nvidia, you
can use a general reference to it. An example (not real for years
range):
Files: *
Copyright: 2010-2014 NVIDIA CORPORATION <info@nvidia.com>
License: ZLIB
After this, you must create new sections to exceptions only. This work
must be precise.I and FTP Master will check each detail.
[1] http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/#fields
5. d/docs: you is installing ALL files as documents. No! There is one
document only: README.txt. The other files are your program.
6. d/rules: your rules has useless comments and is wrong. But your
package is building documents only. So, I can't comment about d/rules
yet. You need read about the upstream program (where put it). I think
that you need all cfg files in /usr/share/cbootimage-configs to make a
link from cbootimage.
7. d/watch is ok.
Cheers,
Eriberto
2014-09-03 8:09 GMT-03:00 Marc Dietrich <marvin24@gmx.de>:
> Hi Eriberto,
>
> Am Mittwoch 27 August 2014, 15:23:45 schrieb Eriberto:
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> 2014-08-26 9:32 GMT-03:00 Marc Dietrich <marvin24@gmx.de>:
>> >> I think you didn't undertand my words. You must create a VCS to
>> >> control your packaging (debian directory). Not create a VCS to point
>> >> to upstream code. The Vcs-Git field must use git:// instead https://.
>> >> Your mistake was put the Vcs-* in binaries instead in source block
>> >> (after Homepage field).
>> >
>> > This and the problems below are a result of how I package the source. Let
>> > me explain it at bit more: cbootimage is used to flash the bootloader on
>> > tegra devices. To do this, it needs some machine specific config files.
>> > These config files are not part of the cbootimage repository, instead
>> > they live under their own one. To avoid creating two source packages, I
>> > decided to include the config tree in the program tree. This is possible
>> > according to
>> > https://wiki.debian.org/Projects/DebSrc3.0 (How to use multiple upstream
>> >
>> > tarball in 3.0 (quilt) format?). So I have two tarballs now:
>> > cbootimage_1.4.orig.tar.gz and
>> > cbootimage_1.4.orig-configs.tar.gz
>> >
>> > which create a binary and an platform independend package. So both
>> > packages
>> > need their own copyright (before cbootimage-1.0 didn't contain the config
>> > files).
>>
>> Ok. Thanks for your explanation. It is new for me. I read the texts
>> and I tested all procedures. However, cbootimage-configs-1.4 doesn't
>> exist in GitHub. So, you must use 0.0, the commit date and Git commit
>> as version (or other similar format). An example for your case:
>> 0.0~git20140806.18e531. To see more examples: $ dpkg -l | grep -i git.
>>
>> I don't see a motive to join the upstream codes. IMHO, it is
>> undesirable in this case, because the upstream source codes are being
>> updated in different times. Thus, I think you must package each code
>> separatelly and make cbootimage dependent of the cbootimage-configs. I
>> have similar sittuation in my life. See my packages (phpwebcounter,
>> phpwebcounter-extra) and (album, album-extra). So, I intent to sponsor
>> your work if you use two packages.
>
> ok, I splitted the packages in two (cbootimage + cbootimage-configs) and
> uploaded them again to mentors.
>
>> ...
>> > mmh, I'm about to install a jessie system in a vm to get a current
>> > lintian. I guess I can ignore the pedantic warnings for now?
>>
>> No. All Lintian messages must be fixed wherever possible.
>
> because cbootimage-configs has no version, I added the watch file with some
> comment that is makes no sense for this package (no releases) as described
> in the debian handbook.
>
> Hopefully, that's all ... Please take a (-nother) look at it again.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Marc
>
Reply to: