Bug#528247: ITP: python-django-djapian -- Full-text search for Django
2009/11/30 Olly Betts <olly@survex.com>
> Mostly this looks good, but a deeper inspection found a few issues (don't
> be scared by the length of this mail - I've tried to provide plenty of
> details):
I can't be scared so easily =)
> http://code.google.com/p/djapian/ seems to indicate djapian 2.3 requires
> django 1.1 and Xapian 1.0.7. I don't know if those are actually minimum
> requirements (there weren't any changes in xapian-core or the Xapian python
> bindings in 1.0.7 which seem a likely explanation) or just what upstream
> have tested with, but unless you know better it's probably as well to
> follow them. Neither requirement is a problem for Debian unstable, or
> for anyone backporting to lenny (lenny has Xapian 1.0.7 and a backported
> version of django 1.1).
Django 1.0 and xapian 1.0.5 are left from previous djapian version. Fixed.
>
> This line in debian/rules doesn't seem to be used or needed:
> PKG = $(shell dh_listpackages)
I don't remember now where it came from... Suspecting `dh_make`. Fixed.
> What's the origin of the licence boilerplate in debian/copyright? The
> upstream sources don't have (C) headers on any of the source files it
> appears - the only mention of a licence seems to be in PKG-INFO:
>
> Author: Alex Koshelev, Rafael "SDM" Sierra
> [...]
> License: New BSD License
>
> Particularly, I don't see where the "django-tagging" used for the org name
> in the third clause comes from. Google suggests it is an unrelated django
> application - is this just a left-over from copying the licence text from
> somewhere?
Yes, it's copypaste from my python-django-tagging effort. Fixed.
> Also, the copyright statements must have year(s), or the ftpmasters will
> reject the package:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/03/msg00023.html
I use years of first/last commit from Subversion repository. Can it be
considered as a reliable source? Should I mention that source somehow?
> Ideally upstream would actually document their licence more explicitly,
> and it would be good to politely point out that it would help their users
> to do so, but debian/copyright certainly shouldn't invent information
> but rather document when and how it was obtained - see "License II" here:
> http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html
I have filed issue in upstream bug tracker:
http://code.google.com/p/djapian/issues/detail?id=99 Beside, I have
requested licensing information from one of developers via email.
> You might want to consider using the draft "machine-readable
> debian/copyright" format to save yourself work later. It seems likely
> this will be adopted, and at some point it would probably then become
> required:
> http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/
Done. Everything must be machine-readable. Kill all humans.
> How you licence the Debian packaging is up to you, but GPLv3 seems an
> odd choice for a BSD python package wrapping a GPLv2+ library. Using
> a stricter licence than Djapian's means that the Djapian developers
> (or indeed the Xapian developers) can't just incorporate any changes from
> your packaging which they find useful.
Ok. I will switch the licence.
> debian/changelog claims "Non-maintainer upload" and "-0.1" indeed indicates
> this as such, which is wrong. You would be the maintainer of this as a
> sponsored upload, so the correct Debian version would be "2.3-1" (in
> this case).
>
> Also "new upstream version" is more conventional than "Imported Upstream
> version 2.3" - see:
> http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/pkgs.html#changelog-entries
It's message from git-import-orig. I thought it's ok to leave it as is. Fixed.
> And the "Closes: #528247" really belongs in the section for the version
> which actually gets uploaded, as that's the one which actually means the
> ITP bug can be closed.
May be changelog should contain only one entry: 'Initial release
(Closes: #528247)'. Is it correct?
> Some of the phrasing in the description seems a bit awkward - I think the
> description would read better as something like (assuming I haven't
> inadvertently changed the intended meaning):
>
> Description: Search API for Django using Xapian
> Djapian provides full-text search in your Django project.
> .
> Most features are provided by the Xapian library. Djapian effectively
> serves as a Django-compatible adaptor for Xapian.
> .
> Djapian's features include:
> [...]
It was excerpt from http://code.google.com/p/djapian/. English is not
native nither for me nor for Djapian developers, so awkwardness is
possible. Fixed as you suggested.
> Has your GPG key been signed by anyone? I found the key on
> keyserver.ubuntu.com but only self-signed. If you might want to become a
> DM or DD in the future, you'll need to get it signed by existing DDs -
> at least one for DM, and at least two for DD.
I'll try to arrange it. But I doubt it'll be easy one.
The new package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
- URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/python-django-djapian
- Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
main contrib non-free
- dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/python-django-djapian/python-django-djapian_2.3-1.dsc
Regards,
Mikhail
Reply to: