Bug#330601: Sponsoring of libiec61883

[Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org>]

        Hi,

On Mon, Sep 18, 2006, Marcio Teixeira wrote:
> Hi Loïc. Thanks for your interest. Yes, I need sponsor. libiec61883
> depends libraw1394, uploaded recently.

 Yes.

>                                        Please, wait fews days for I
> update libiec61883.

 Hmm, what are you waiting for?  builds?  Looks fine now:
 http://people.debian.org/~igloo/status.php?email=&packages=libraw1394&arches=

 Perhaps you meant to replace libraw1394-8-dev with libraw1394-dev in
 your debian/control?

> Great. Thank you very much. I'm a newbie and so, I will need your help, 
> sure.

 Ok, so first I see you did not start from the Ubuntu packaging or
 changed it.  That's ok, it's your time, but it might save you some time
 to look there first for the next packages.  :)
   Anyway, the Ubuntu packaging has some issues, so it's fine to rewrite
 it.  You did more mistakes though.  ;-)

 Here are the issues I see with your packaging:

(required) 1) Your copyright claims:
 http://www.linux1394.org/dl/libiec61883-1.0.0.tar.gz
 this would have to be updated for each release, please only mention the
 base path, <http://www.linux1394.org/dl/>

(required) 2) You need the copyright years at some point.  For example:
  Copyright 2004 Mister Foo
  Copyright 2005-2006 Mister Bar
 or simply:
  Copyright 2004-2006      Mister Foo, Mister Bar, ...
 Do a recursive grep on the source to get a list of copyright years, and
 at it at the top of copyright.

 3) the current SVN has changes with respect to the upstream tarball, I
 don't see why these changes are made directly in the source when you
 use a patch system.  Modern packages use a patch system, and I suggest
 you keep only the debian/ in SVN.  The teams I'm in all do this, have a
 look at svn+ssh://svn.debian.org/svn/pkg-gnome/desktop/unstable or
 svn+ssh://svn.debian.org/svn/pkg-gstreamer/unstable if you like.
   This is not required, and I only suggest you make your own opinion.
 I think it's best to only keep debian/ in SVN, but I know some people
 do it like you do.
   This makes it a bit harder for me to review the delta between your
 package and upstream for example.
   Also, I see you wrote a get-orig-source target which will
 relibtoolize the source (run autotools), I don't think it's a good
 reason to repack the tarball.  Tarballs are typically repacked to strip
 off non-free stuff.  I use patches for this instead, search for
 70_relibtoolize patches in pkg-gnome for example.  Please tell me why
 you repack the source.

 4) Debhelper compatibility level 4.  4 is slightly deprecated, 5 is
 supposed to be the norm, especially for new packages.  But I'm fine
 with this.

 5) Package: libiec61883-0-dev
 Provides: libiec61883-dev
 Conflicts: libiec61883-dev
 I see no reason why you would want to do this in Debian, particularly
 since the Ubuntu package is named libiec61883-dev, this seems to
 introduce an incompatibility.  Could you explain why you want this
 name?

 6) Please add ${misc:Depends} to your Depends, even if this results in
 a warning, this is a safer setup.

 7) The get-orig-source is awful, it's a shell script wrapped in
 makefile.  Makefile are like shell scripts with the "set -e" flag, so
 there's no need to use && \ between lines.  If you want to embed a long
 shell script like this one in the future, use a separate file, eg
 debian/get-orig-source.sh.  In this particular case, I don't think you
 should repack the tarball at all, but if you still want to do so, you
 might want to rely on "uscan" instead (that's what the watch file is
 for after all).

(required) 8) Don't hardcode the package version, like in
 DEB_PKG_VERSION := 1.0.0.  You can use dpkg-parsechangelog to retrieve
 the needed information.  Grep the debian/rules in pkg-gnome for
 examples.


 Please fix the "required" items above and point me to the updated
 package.  You may or may not fix the non-required stuff, but please
 repond to the questions.

   Thanks,

-- 
Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org>