Re: Newbie: "Review request" on an updated LIRC package
Hi Alec,
(can't answer for the maintainers, just giving my personal pinion)
>This is my first contact with the Debian community. I might be doing all
>sorts of errors, including sending a questionable message to the wrong
>list. Just tell me, I'll listen.
it is fine by me
>I'm the upstream LIRC [2] maintainer. We are currently in the 0.9.4
>cycle which tentatively will be released around Christmas. The debian
>official packaging is stuck on 0.9.0, and we have thus decided to
>provide a debian packaging upstream [1] so Debian users should have a
>more modern version available,
>
>I'm not seeking any argument as to why the Debian packages are still
>0.9.0. It's the debian packager's decision. Full stop.
the argument might be: we were in the freeze because of jessie release at that time,
so no new packages have been uploaded yet.
and the maintainer retired a few months ago.
>However, I'm all new to Debian packaging (although I have some RPM
>experience). Because of that, I would really appreciate if someone on
>this list could take a look at the current packaging and make an
>informal review. I don't really know how to contribute in return, but if
>someone by accident here needs help with an RPM package I'm here.
I guess you need to provide the debian packaging, but a quick question:
did you try to get in touch with the current maintainers on Debian, and
contribute directly there?
nothing I guess will stop you in updating the package, learn some packaging
experience and help debian folks :p
>The package is not based on the current LIRC packages. The upstream is
>so much changed that I thought it was better to make fresh start.
>lintian is almost silent.
this is nice for sure, and since we are in the early stretch development cycle
I hope the current maintainers won't object to some fresh packaging!
Partial review, just based on looking at the files:
"debian/{distfiles,INSTALL}" are them needed?
some packages might be multiarch ready, please investigate and mark them as such
https://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/Implementation
debian/*docs: here you should only have documentation files, nothing more
debian/lirc.prerm
"
#!/bin/sh
set -e
#DEBHELPER#
"
I guess this file is just useless, why don't use the generated one?
rules file might be simplified I guess.
e.g. dh_auto_install doesn't need dh_testdir and dh_testroot I guess
binary-arch and binary-indep seems to be useless, at least you need to override the single calls.
e.g.
override_dh_install:
dh_install --fail-missing
override_dh_systemd_enable
dh_systemd_enable --name=lircd
the followign can be candidate for a debian/*.links or dh_link target
ln -sf ../../../../share/lirc/configs \
debian/lirc/usr/lib/python*/*-packages/lirc/
(manpages of the dh_calls can help you a lot)
chmod 755 debian/lirc/usr/share/lirc/contrib/irman2lirc
should belong to an override of dh_fixperms
debian/source/options I guess can be removed
some patches might be simplified, but I didn't even test them
(e.g. la files, they are useless for Debian, why change their name?)
cheers,
G.
Reply to: