Bug#896970: RFS: odp/1.19.0.0-1 [ITP]
Package: sponsorship-requests
Followup-For: Bug #896970
> 1. This package misses dependency libconfig-dev
Added.
> 2. Please fix the lintian warnings. e.g.
>
> W: odp-doc: privacy-breach-generic
I will try to. Privacy breaches come from generated documentation.
> 3. debhelper compat level and the standards-version is a bit old.
> The latest compat is 11, and standards-version is 4.1.4.
> See debhelper(7) section COMPATIBILITY LEVELS for compat checklist.
> See https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ for the standards upgrading
> checklist.
Ack
> 4. Please break the lines whose length exceeds 80 characters in
> debian/control and rules.
Ack
> 5. Could you explain why these lines exist? Package libodp-linux-dev
> seems not exist.
Packages libodp-linux-dev and libodp-linux119 are virtual package,
provided by different implementations of ODP API. We are providing
another ODP implementation, implemented specifically on top of DPDK
(https://github.com/Linaro/odp-dpdk). It is not packaged (yet). These
two implementations are binary compatible. It is planned that odp-dpdk
will have libodp-dpdk119 (Provides: libodp-linux119) and libodp-dpdk-dev
(Provides: libodp-linux-dev) packages.
Would you recommend how should I better document and/or implement these
packages.
> 6. Must we provide a example package with pre-built binaries shipped?
>
> 77 Package: odp-linux-examples
>
> Why can't we put the source of these examples into the doc package?
> Or why don't we choose a name such as libodp-tools / libodp-utils
> to avoid ambiguity?
libodp-test-utils? These tools are mostly testing programs, that can be
used either by autotests (in future) or users (to check that their ODP
installation works).
> 7. your patch directory is empty, could you please remove it?
Sure, removing
> 8. Changelog: This is the first-time upload. Could you change the file
> so that it looks like this:
OK. I will upload updated package with shortened changelog.
> 9. debian/docs This file looks useless ?
Dropping now.
> 10. Why is the package containing
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libodp-linux.so.119.0.0
> named libodp-generic119?
See point 5.
> 11. Why is dh_auto_test overrode to empty?
We had issues with make check before, they interacted strangely with
build environment, that is why it is disabled for now. I plan to
reenable it later.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: buster/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386
Kernel: Linux 4.15.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_GB:en (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled
Reply to: