Bug#887126: RFS: ddupdate/0.2.0-1 #886546
Hi Juhani!
Thanks for your reply, and sorry that I missed it! It was probably lost
in the noise, was not really prepared for a reply from the bug so to
speak. Listening to high-volume lists is not always easy :(
For better or worse, both upstream and the packaging has evolved since
your review.
On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:22:37 +0200 Juhani Numminen
<juhaninumminen0@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alec Leamas kirjoitti 14.01.2018 klo 11:07:
> > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ddupdate"
>
> Here's a review, but please note that I cannot sponsor you.
It's a pity, but thanks anyway! Perhaps someone else could be motivated
once we are finished with this...
> I don't have network admin knowledge, so I didn't test the
functionality of ddupdate.
It's actually rather straight-forward these days, especially using the
ddupdate-config configuration script (which wasn't there when you
reviewed). That said, focusing on the packaging seems perfectly fine for me.
> Please use up-to-date lintian. It'll give you an error tag and several
> informational and pedantic tags, some of which are easily dealt with.
I'm using sid, updated as of current?!
> This review is based on the package you have uploaded to mentors, but
I also
> had a look at your git repo, where you wrote in a commit message:
> > debian: Fix Standards-Version: to current sid 4.0.0
> Your sources for that information are outdated, you should check [1]
instead.
This one beats me... should I read it that current standard is 4.1.3?
Fixing using the ideas Standards-Version == 4.1.3 and compat level ==
11. Still unsure, though.
> At the mentors site, you write:
> > I cannot understand what's wrong with the copyright file. I guess
it's a silly oversight.
> >
> > uscan works just fine for me, the watch file error seems weird.
>
> If you're referring to "P: ddupdate source: no-dep5-copyright", it's
because your
> debian/copyright doesn't follow the specification[2]: it doesn't have
a header paragraph
> and the license text for MIT isn't specified.
Fixed
> Uscan works for me as well, mentors.debian.net has a broken check indeed.
Good to hear :)
> debian/control: Please add Vcs-Git. To specify the branch, see
Policy[1] §5.6.26.
Fixed
> Typo in Description: ubiquotious->ubiquitous.
Fixed (actually not a typo, silly me couldn't spell it).
> debian/ddupdate-docs.docs: There is no "ddupdate-docs" binary package
so this file
> doesn't do anything[3], please remove.
Fixed
> debian/README.debian: Typo: updatet->updated.
Fixed
> I think Debian should be capitalized as a proper noun in user
documentation.
Right, fixed
> debian/rules:
> Debhelper has picked Makefile instead of setup.py, so you should add
> "--buildsystem=pybuild" after the --with arguments. Then you can
remove override_dh_build,
> override_dh_auto_install and override_dh_python3 rules, and delete the
file debian/install.
However, this is on purpose. I control upstream, and the Makefile
actually does the right things. Is there anything wrong with this approach?
That said, rules is in a much better shape since the review, cleaned up
and with a dh_override_missing added.
> However, this causes that every file that setup.py installs goes into
the package.
> To control what gets installed, you can add something like this to
debian/rules:
> override_dh_install:
> dh_install
> rm debian/ddupdate/usr/share/doc/ddupdate/CONTRIBUTE.md \
> debian/ddupdate/usr/share/doc/ddupdate/LICENSE.txt
This is fixed upstream (which used to install these files, one of my
really bad ideas).
> The installed package is missing some Depends: "ModuleNotFoundError:
No module named 'straight'".
Recent dependencies for the .deb package looks ok to me. Note that the
straight.plugin and sudo deps have been dropped by upstream.
Cheers!
--alec
Reply to: