Re: RFS: HexWalk Request for sponsor
Hello carmix,
I've had some time to review the package today, I didn't review everything in
depth so there might be more comments after these changes.
1) d/changelog: unstable distribution
I see that you're targeting "stable" in the changelog, but in Debian we do
uploads to unstable or experimental, new packages can only get to stable
through stable-backports (and that's after the package migrates from unstable
to testing).
You can read more about it here:
https://backports.debian.org/
This diagram shows the workflow of packages:
https://wiki.debian.org/DebianReleases#Workflow
For more information, I suggest reading about the Debian release process.
2) debian/compat: deprecated file
We don't use this file anymore, check the following manpage section for
details:
https://manpages.debian.org/unstable/debhelper/debhelper.7.en.html#COMPATIBILITY_LEVELS
3) Build fails
I'm not able to build the package, it fails with missing file errors, like:
> dh_install: warning: Cannot find (any matches for) "hexwalk.ico" (tried in ., debian/tmp)
I think the solution to this might fall under #4 below.
In order for a review to be done, the package needs to be buildable, if not,
then I suggest reaching out for help with the specific issues.
4) No build system
It doesn't seem like debhelper is building anything, changes need to be done to
actually trigger the build, they will depend on the buildsystem you use.
You can search for how other packages make use of qmake here:
https://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=qmake&literal=1&perpkg=1
I believe finding someone to help you more directly would be useful, packaging
is hard and I know how tough it is to be in this position.
But also, you don't necessarily need to do the packaging yourself, if you
prefer, you can open an RFP bug (or turn your RFS into an RFP), this would be a
request for someone to package it.
The only reason I'm saying this is because usually upstreams don't want to get
too much involved in packaging, but if you do, that's great.
Cheers,
--
Samuel Henrique <samueloph>
Reply to: