On Fri, 2022-10-21 at 17:29 +0200, Robin Alexander wrote: > 1. Why didn't the "source-is-missing" error show on my environment > (prior to push the package with dput)? Is there a specific lintian setup > that I missed? FYI, my packaging environment runs on bullseye (I tried > sid yesterday, but somehow there was a problem with one missing package > that was preventing apt upgrade and install) The mentors server runs lintian from bullseye-backports not bullseye, that is likely the reason that you are getting different results. In general package building and testing is done in sid environments, so you might want to use sbuild/pbuilder to at least get a sid chroot for building and testing and or a sid virtual machine for complex testing. The reason for the apt issues you encountered is that there is a Perl transition in progress. Please subscribe to debian-devel-announce. https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/Y07wZyTNjNTxIsYI@estella.local.invalid > 2. The "source-is-missing" error is actually not a missing file but a > file (libtoolame-dab/html/psycho.html) with too-long lines. Is there any > action I must take to make lintian happy or can the package be accepted > "as-is" ? libtoolame-dab sounds like an embedded code copy that should be packaged separately. I note that some parts of it are already in Debian in twolame. Other parts aren't though. The naming of the two is very similar too. So it seems to clearly be either a local fork, an older version of libtwolame or an embedded code copy of a fork of libtwolame. It would be good if you could clarify the situation with upstream and try to get them to remove the copy or merge the fork further upstream. Please note that forks and code copies should be registered with the Debian security team so that they fix security bugs in both copies: https://wiki.debian.org/EmbeddedCopies If I look at the twolame source package then I see that psycho.html is present there too, but it is automatically generated from a text file. They clearly are not the same file, asciidoc builds the twolame HTML. When I convert the two HTML files to plain text using `w3m -dump` and then compare them with wdiff or meld (accounting for bugs in w3m, the different name and different quote types), the twolame version is definitely the newer documentation since there are sentence and word additions. I notice that libtoolame-dab also contains a 'text'dir, but the psy.text file in that directory doesn't contain any of the doc text. wdiff <(cp -f ./odr-audioenc-3.3.1/libtoolame-dab/html/psycho.html . ; sed -i '/style/,/STYLE/d' psycho.html ; w3m -dump psycho.html) <(w3m -dump ./twolame-0.4.0/doc/html/psycho.html | sed "s/’/'/g;s/TwoLAME/tooLAME/g") I'm not sure what to think of this, but two scenarios I can think of: The libtoolame-dab text directory used to have a text file that was the source of the HTML file and the text got dropped. This may have been an LGPL violation when it was done if the HTML was built from the text. The libtoolame documentation (inherited by libtoolame-dab) was always maintained in plain HTML and then later when tooLAME got renamed to TwoLAME, they converted it to asciidoc format for easier maintenance. Given the way the style tag contents are formatted and some of the mistakes in the libtoolame-dab HTML, probably it was the second one. Please add an override explaining that it is manually maintained. libtoolame-dab definitely needs to be split out of odr-audioenc, rebased on the latest TwoLAME and merged into it too though. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part