Hi, thanks you for your message.
I run lintian as follow: lintian -E -I --pedantic, so now I also will use the -i option.
I've fixed some warning but I can't for one of them.
I'm sorry but I don't understand this one:
I: spview source: debian-watch-contains-dh_make-template (line 2)
N:
N: The watch file contains a standard template included by dh_make. Please
N: remove them once you have implemented the watch file.
N:
N: Severity: wishlist, Certainty: certain
N:
N: Check: debian/watch, Type: source
N:
I don't understand why the watch file depends of dh_make in this case.
For the java issue I will ask to the appropriate mailing list. Thank you again.
De: "Stuart Prescott" <stuart@debian.org>
À: "debian-science" <debian-science@lists.debian.org>
Cc: "Cyril Richard" <Cyril.Richard@u-bourgogne.fr>
Envoyé: Samedi 28 Septembre 2019 05:55:37
Objet: Re: Need review of my package
Hi!
As a first step, do you run lintian in a verbose mode (--info) or do you use
lintian-info? Just in case you didn't know, lintian often has a really good
explanation of the tag, some references for more reading and often info about
how to fix the problem too.
> P: spview source: rules-requires-root-missing
$ lintian-info -t rules-requires-root-missing
P: rules-requires-root-missing
N:
N: The debian/control file is missing an explicit Rules-Requires-Root
N: field.
N:
N: Traditionally, Debian packages have required root privileges for some
N: debian/rules target requiring a split between build and binary
N: targets. This makes the builds slower due to the increased amount of
N: invocations as well as the overhead of fakeroot itself.
N:
N: Please specify (eg.) Rules-Requires-Root: no in the debian/control
N: source stanza, but packagers should verify using diffoscope(1) that
N: the binaries built with this field present are identical.
N:
N: Refer to /usr/share/doc/dpkg-dev/rootless-builds.txt.gz, Debian Policy
N: Manual section 4.9.2 (debian/rules and Rules-Requires-Root), and
N: Debian Policy Manual section 5.6.31 (Rules-Requires-Root) for details.
N:
N: Severity: pedantic, Certainty: certain
N:
N: Check: debian/control, Type: source
N:
Very few packages actually need to be built as root (or even with fakeroot) so
adding "Rules-Requires-Root: no" to the first stanza of debian/control tells
the build system not to do this. Building is (slightly) faster in this mode
and not building as root can actually make some test suites work better.
> W: spview source: inconsistent-appstream-metadata-license
> debian/spview.appdata.xml (cc0-1.0 != gpl-3+)
This is about comparing metadata_license (which is the licence for the
spview.appdata.xml file) and what the package says in debian/copyright about
spview.appdata.xml. If you look at the debian/copyright in the package, it is
asserting that the appstream file is GPL-3+ (by virtual of the Files: *
paragraph). It's normal for the appstream data to be CC0 and documenting that
in debian/copyright is the consequence.
> I: spview source: testsuite-autopkgtest-missing
BTW if you can add something that is at least a smoke test of the jar then
that would be great (something that fails due to the manifest as you write
below, for instance!). Even better if the application has a test suite that
can be run against the installed jar.
> Then, after all these things, it appears that my app does not work. After
> installation I have: no main manifest attribute, in
> /usr/share/java/spview.jar
How does the user execute the jar? If you've got a wrapper script then you can
call the explicit class name that should be instantiated from the jar. I can't
spot anything wrong in your d/rules but then my java building skills have not
kept up with the plethora of build system out there for java.... the debian-
java mailing list or #debian-java on irc.debian.org / irc.oftc.net might be a
better place to ask.
Stuart
--
Stuart Prescott http://www.nanonanonano.net/ stuart@nanonanonano.net
Debian Developer http://www.debian.org/ stuart@debian.org
GPG fingerprint 90E2 D2C1 AD14 6A1B 7EBB 891D BBC1 7EBB 1396 F2F7