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

Bug#875511: RFS: qmdnsengine/0.1.0-1 [ITP]



On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 02:33:31PM -0700, Nathan Osman wrote:
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "qmdnsengine"
> 
>  * Package name    : qmdnsengine
>    Version         : 0.1.0-1
>    Upstream Author : Nathan Osman <nathan@quickmediasolutions.com>
>  * URL             : https://github.com/nitroshare/qmdnsengine

> It builds those binary packages:
> 
>   libqmdnsengine-dev - Multicast DNS library for Qt applications -
> development files
>   libqmdnsengine-doc - Multicast DNS library for Qt applications -
> documentation
>   libqmdnsengine-examples - Multicast DNS library for Qt applications -
> examples
>   libqmdnsengine0 - Multicast DNS library for Qt applications

Hi!
It looks like there's quite a backlog of ITP packages.  Yeah, it's
disheartening...

Your package seems to be in a quite good shape.

I'm not sure if a mix of sources and binaries in
/usr/lib/$ARCH_TRIPLET/qmdnsengine/examples is the best place, but I don't
really have a better suggestion.

Alas, while the testsuite during build works, autopkgtest fails:

autopkgtest [01:23:41]: test command1: ctest
autopkgtest [01:23:41]: test command1: [-----------------------
bash: ctest: command not found
autopkgtest [01:23:41]: test command1: -----------------------]
autopkgtest [01:23:42]: test command1:  - - - - - - - - - - results - - - - - - - - - -
command1             FAIL non-zero exit status 127
autopkgtest [01:23:42]: test command1:  - - - - - - - - - - stderr - - - - - - - - - -
bash: ctest: command not found
autopkgtest [01:23:42]: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ summary

It's not just a matter of adding a test dependency on cmake.

There's documentation at:
https://people.debian.org/~mpitt/autopkgtest/README.package-tests.html
https://people.debian.org/~mpitt/autopkgtest/README.running-tests.html

Note, however, that autopkgtest is something that's nice to have, but
as these are the same stuff as you already run during the build, it's not as
vital.

Also, lintian has something to say.  This is not your fault as there were
recent changes to the policy, but it'd be good to fix them in the next try:
* redundant test headers
* priority: extra
* newest and greatest standards version


Meow!
-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Mozilla's Hippocritic Oath: "Keep trackers off your trail"
⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ blah blah evading "tracking technology" blah blah
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ "https://click.e.mozilla.org/?qs=e7bb0dcf14b1013fca3820...";
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ (same for all links)


Reply to: