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

Bug#787328: RFS: mpd-sima/0.13.1-1



Hi Christian, Gianfranco

First,t hanks for your careful reviews :)

git repo and package on mentors are updated.

Here follows my answers.

Le 14/09/2015 20:37, Christian Kastner wrote :
> Gianfranco already beat me to the review; nevertheless, here are some
> additional notes I had prepared, based on the package I saw on Sunday
> (the package is no longer visible on mentors.d.n).
> 
> On 2015-09-14 12:32, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
>> lets review:
>>
>> 1) you dropped 0.10.0-2 entry from changelog
Fixed, it disappeared somehow in the process :/

>> 2) entry 0.10.0-1 is targeted wrongly
I don't get what you mean.

>> 3) bump compat level not mentioned in changelog
Done

>> 4) according to setup.py
>> install_requires=['python-musicpd>=0.4.1', 'requests>= 2.0.2'],
>> so I guess there is no need to specify them to runtime dependencies

It is indeed useless to specify them explicitly, dh_python3 and
${python3:Depends}.

>> 5) please mention copyright updates
>> 6) mpd-sima.default
>> "+## NOTA BENE:"
>> this seems to be italian, please use english
Done

>>
>> 7)
>> +## only works with SysV init
>> +## With systemd init: "touch /etc/mpd-sima_not_to_be_run" to prevent mpd-sima from being started
>>
>>
>> well, can't you use some systemd facilities to do the same?

I did specify the systemd way to disable the script in mpd-sima.default.
I also removed support for this file in service file, this was only an
attempt to have systemd to work as SysV did.
I don't believe this is relevant.

> d/control:
>   - The Vcs-Browser URL refers to the gitweb viewer, whereas the current
>     viewer seems to be cgit (the gitweb URL just redirects there)
Done

> d/changelog:
>   - typo: convertion -> conversion
>   - When bumping S-V, while not necessary, it is good practice to
>     indicate what changes were made in the process, or "no changes
>     needed" if that was the case
Done


>   - It is helpful to be more explicit about some changes. You mention,
>     for example, that the package has been converted to Python 3. The
>     fact that the Python 2 package has been dropped is merely implied.
>     That is IMHO a significant change, and should be worth a hint
Indeed, though, this is not a python module but only an application.
It is not as important as it might be for python modules.
I did rephrase a bit the changelog anyway.

And I'll try to be more verbose in the future.

> d/copyright:
>   - The Upstream-Source URL lists something completely different to the
>     the Homepage field in d/control. Could it be that one of them needs
>     to be updated?
It does, thanks.
Fields updated.

> d/NEWS:
>   - The upgrade path suggestion for the conffile in /etc isn't
>     really the prettiest solution, although I really don't know what
>     other path I could suggest that wouldn't seem like overkill. How
>     did upstream handle this change? Do they perhaps have a script or
>     tool that could assist in this process?

Well, I'm actually upstream, I did not write any tool to migrate the
conf. Since the package is not that popular (popcon ~ 100) and because
target users are quite probably advanced users and command line lovers,
I did not try to handle a nice and smoothly conf upgrade.

Well I think the current tradeoff to be acceptable given the package
popularity and users profile.

> d/<somewhere>
>   - I encountered a lintian warning when building your package
> 
> Apologies for not providing more accurate references and/or possibly
> outdated information. I had your package source in /tmp, which of course
> didn't survive a reboot...

This was a lintian warning command-with-path-in-maintainer-script.
https://lintian.debian.org/full/pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org.html#mpd-sima_0.10.0-2

I fixed it using which instead of a test:
http://git.kaliko.me/?p=mpd-sima-debian.git;a=commitdiff;h=214b4926


Thanks again for the review.
Geoff

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: