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

Bug#623970: ITP: xul-ext-cookie-monster -- please package Iceweasel Cookie Monster extension



On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 07:26:47PM +0200, Fabrizio Regalli wrote:
> > It is *way* better to have an _unpacked_ source tree as upstream.
> > Otherwise, reviewing upstream changes is going to be a pain. Writing
> > patches against upstream source is going to be even more than that.
> 
> A 'repack.sh' script that grabs and unpack the .jar file and re-create
> the tarball could be a reasonable solution?
> Or download the xpi, unpack the jar and create .orig.tar.gz from it
> (including install.rdf file) is enough?

Whatever feels right to you. The second solution would only be
acceptable if that process was documented in debian/README.source, IMHO.

What would be desirable with a `repack` script is to make it compatible
with uscan. Otherwise the watch file would need to be amended not to use
xpi-repack anymore.

> > > >  * Package is missing a README.source
> > > > 
> > > >    Even if it's not mandatory, the package is really missing a
> > > >    README.source. It is supposed to be under the pkg-mozext umbrella,
> > > >    so other member of that team should be able to upload the package
> > > >    if the need arises.
> > > > 
> > > >    Things that ought to be documented are at least: git-buildpackage
> > > >    usage, pristine-tar usage, the upstream-changelog file (why, what and
> > > >    how to update it).
> > > 
> > > Usually I never used, but if necessary I can create it.
> > 
> > Am I supposed to guess everything about this uncommon
> > `debian/upstream-changelog` file alone?
> 
> Don't know, but if you take a look at 'tabmixplus' package for example
> you can check by yourself that the README.source does not exist (and
> upstream changelog exists)

And? It's not because something a sibbling package is of average quality
that you should not strive for the best.

> > > >  * Inaccurate copyright file
> > > > 
> > > >    The copyright file that gets installed in
> > > >    /usr/share/doc/xul-ext-cookie-monster/copyright is inaccurate,
> > > >    as the MPL license is not copied to the same directory.
> > > 
> > > I create a new copyright file, hoping this time is right.
> > 
> > Is the MPL file going to be copied automatically in
> > /usr/share/doc/xul-ext-cookie-monster?
> 
> Sorry, my fault. (I forget to commit 'docs' file to git)

You should always double-check the result of a build. Source, diff, and
the content of the binary packages.

Here is what I do, at least:

 $ eval $(lesspipe)
 $ dcmd less ../build-area/$NEW_VERSION.changes
 $ debdiff ../build-area/$OLD_VERSION.dsc ../build-area/$NEW_VERSION.dsc
 $ debdiff ../build-area/$OLD_VERSION.changes ../build-area/$NEW_VERSION.changes

Cheers,
-- 
Jérémy Bobbio                        .''`. 
jeremy.bobbio@irq7.fr               : :   :             lunar@debian.org
                                    `. `'` 
                                      `-

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: