Re: Bug#725772: RFS: nfft -- Library for computing Non-uniform Fast Fourier Transforms
Sorry I could not take care of that earlier, being in the middile of my
On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 11:15 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Ghislain,
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 05:48:35PM +0100, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> > Hi Andreas, I have updated the package following your comments.
> > http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=debian-science/packages/nfft.git
> I'm afraid I have some further remarks:
> - Thanks to Scott's explanation I think I understood now the dh-exec
> mechanism and so I think you can remove dh-exec from the
make sense, I dropped it.
> - Priorities: The source package should be "Priority: optional" and
> only for the *-dbg package you should explicitly specify
> "Priority: extra". The point is that priority extra packages will
> be excluded from some QA checks which we do not really want in
> general but actually debug packages should feature this "extra"
> - Neat tip: You might like to check, how config modell using
> cme fix dpkg-control
> is formating your control file. I personally like this.
not quite sure what you meant here. I did run "cme fix dpkg-control" and
did not return anything, nor did it change the copyright file. no
further action taken.
> You created a new changelog paragraph. For not yet uploaded packages
> this is at best confusiing even if your *-1 entry claims that it was
> uploaded to unstable (which it was not - at best this should be
> "UNRELEASED"). Also the consequence of this new entry is, that the
> ITP bug is not closed by an upload if I would upload as is. You can
> easily verify this effect when looking at the tasks page which is
> not linking to an according WNPP bug (in contrast to for instance
> liblevmar-dev). The reason is that only the latest paragraph of
> d/changelog is parsed.
fare enough. I modified the changelog file to reflect on this.
> So my advise would be to *not* log your actual changes inside
> d/changelog until we have *really* the first version inside Debian.
> There is sufficient information inside the Git commit logs. Just
> remove the 3.2.3-2 paragraph and it also makes sense to "target"
> with 3.2.3-1 at UNRELEASED while leaving me as the sponsor the
> task to switch this to unstable once I decide to upload. This
> is (should be??) written in Debian Science policy document and
> helps other team members to see immediately that a package was not
> yet uploaded.
don't remember reading anything about that in the policy. documentation
about packaging is so scattered and not particularly readable for a "new
comer" like me that I can't be 100\% sure. if I were not that curious
and keen to contribute I would have probably given up already.
> Regarding the SoB sponsering I told you I have added the *-dev package
> to the relevant development tasks of Debian Science which can be seen
> for example in mathematics-dev task.
not sure I understand what that means, it's probably more relevant to
your side as a mentor I guess.
> Could you now please add an according entry at the SoB Wiki page to
> make sure you understood the mechanism I would like to push via SoB.
> Kind regards
>  http://blends.alioth.debian.org/science/tasks/mathematics-dev#libnfft3-dev
>  https://wiki.debian.org/DebianPureBlends/SoB
Once again thanks for your patience and verbose explanation about the