Re: Openchrome Package Audit
David Nusinow wrote:
> Hi Raphael,
Hi David,
>
> As I mentioned on IRC, I just made a quick audit of the package. It
> looks to be in pretty good shape overall, but there's a few issues, mostly
> small:
>
> - Should build-dep on >= 2:1.4 for uploads to unstable at this time.
> This'll have to be bumped in the near future
Do we really need to bump the dependency? I was thinking about backports.
>
> - Precision Insight has a copyright on the xf86dri.[ch] and xf866drisrh.h
> files. Add it to debian/copyright
Done
>
> - This isn't an application, so s/Application License/Library License/ in
> debian/copyright
Ack.
>
> - You need to use xsfbs properly rather than copy and paste it in to
> debian/rules. The way to do it is to add it as a branch to your local
> git repo using the repo on alioth. Then just merge the xsfbs branch in
> to your debian-unstable branch. Update your debian/rules accordingly so
> you don't duplicate the code that's there needlessly.
>
I only copied that part of xsfbs based on the next conversation from
#debian-x and because it doesn't look useful for -openchrome:
> [Sun Jan 13 2008] [10:54:50] <Atomo64> wouldn't it be better to ship
xsfbs/ in xserver-xorg-dev instead of ship
> ping it on every single package?
> [Sun Jan 13 2008] [10:56:09] <bgoglin> it's suppose to include of other
macro that are used everywhere, not only some provides rules
> [Sun Jan 13 2008] [10:56:21] <bgoglin> but I am not sure these macros are
really used a lot these days
> [Sun Jan 13 2008] [10:57:23] <Atomo64> bgoglin: what's used instead then?
> [Sun Jan 13 2008] [10:58:13] <bgoglin> nothing, lots of these macros were
used in the old xserver-xorg postinst, for instance
> [Sun Jan 13 2008] [10:58:22] <bgoglin> david cleaned a lot of mess in
this postinst recently
> [Sun Jan 13 2008] [10:59:29] <Atomo64> so keeping the original package's
CDBS usage is fine then?
> [Sun Jan 13 2008] [11:04:19] <bgoglin> you still need xsfbs to generates
the provides automatically
> [Sun Jan 13 2008] [11:04:39] <Atomo64> I've already merged that part of
xsfbs
> [Sun Jan 13 2008] [11:05:31] <jcristau> you probably don't need the rest
of it
Should I anyway ship xsfbs?
>
> Overall, it's pretty good, but the way you used xsfbs badly needs to be
> fixed. Other than that, it looks fine to me.
>
> - David Nusinow
Sincerely,
--
Atomo64 - Raphael
Please avoid sending me Word, PowerPoint or Excel attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Reply to: