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

Re: Bug#725772: RFS: nfft -- Library for computing Non-uniform Fast Fourier Transforms

Hi Andreas,

Sorry I could not take care of that earlier, being in the middile of my
writing-up too.

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:


> d/control:
>   - 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
>     Build-Depends

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.

> d/changelog:
>   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[1] 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[1].

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[2] to
> make sure you understood the mechanism I would like to push via SoB.


> Kind regards
>       Andreas.
> [1] http://blends.alioth.debian.org/science/tasks/mathematics-dev#libnfft3-dev
> [2] https://wiki.debian.org/DebianPureBlends/SoB 
> -- 
> http://fam-tille.de

Once again thanks for your patience and verbose explanation about the
process, Andreas.


Reply to: