Hi Lucas,
Hi d-mentors (there's a workflow question below),
On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 at 05:16:54PM -0300, Lucas Castro wrote:
> The source builds the following binary packages:
>
> foolsm - Link connectivity monitor tool
> lsm - Link connectivity monitor tool - transitional package
>
> To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL:
>
> https://mentors.debian.net/package/lsm/
>
> Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command:
>
> dget -xhttps://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/lsm/lsm_1.0.21-1.dsc
I like using git since it makes dsc review easier. I've converted the
upstream tarball history and your uploads to git using gbp and put them
here:
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/lsm
If you don't want to use git that's fine it's just a convinience for the me
or the next DD to sponsor lsm but I'd be happy to help you figure out the
Debian git workflow if you want.
Package Review
--------------
d/changelog:
> lsm (1.0.21-1) unstable; urgency=medium
> .
> * New upstream release (Closes: #1041221)
> * Usrmerge compliance (Closes: #1054086)
Could be more specific. "Use dh_installsystemd to install units" maybe?
> * Package rename
Use imperative in changelogs and be more specific: "Rename package to
'foolsm' to stay consistent with upstream" or some such.
> - Added transitional package for renaming process
More specific please. I'd go with straight prose and not bullet-points
myself. Say: "The old 'lsm' package is now transitional and installs the
new 'foolsm' package.
> - Debian package was modified after upstream project rename.
I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me here?
> * debian/watch updated
> * debian/patches/ cleaned out
IMO these are implied. Ofc. we're going to do that when we update a package
in Debian so while these would make good git commits I don't think they
should be in d/changelog since that's mostly user-facing.
Maybe that's just my git sensibilities showing and it's perfectly
appropriate to note this in d/changelog for the old dsc focused workflow?
Feel free to rebuttle this point.
d/copyright:
> Files: *
> Copyright: 2009-2016 Mika Ilmaranta <ilmis@nullnet.fi>
> 2009-2015 Tuomo Soini <tis@foobar.fi>
licensecheck finds newer copyright dates, some ftp reviewers like to be
pedantic here and since we'll make a trip through NEW its best to be exact
here, should be:
Copyright: 2009-2019 Mika Ilmaranta <ilmis@nullnet.fi>
2009-2021 Tuomo Soini <tis@foobar.fi>
d/rules:
> DEBUG=true
I'm not sure how to feel about this. Do you have a reason for turning it
on? Seems the last upload had it commented out. From a quick codereivew it
does look to just add more logging, so it's probably fine?
Looking at the generated maintainerscripts in the foolsm deb I don't see
anything related to dpkg-maintscript-helper, are you sure that's hooked up
right? Good job finding that obscurica BTW I didn't know about that myself
:)
man says:
> When using a packaging helper, please check if it has native
> dpkg-maintscript-helper integration, which might make your life
> easier. See for example dh_installdeb(1).
Hmm. I do see:
$ cat debian/lsm.preinst.debhelper
# Automatically added by dh_installdeb/13.11.4
dpkg-maintscript-helper mv_conffile /etc/lsm/lsm.config /etc/foolsm/foolsm.conf 1.0.21\~ -- "$@"
# End automatically added section
but that somehow doesn't seem to make it into the deb. Oh. The
lsm.maintscript probably has to be called s/lsm/foolsm/ for it to work.
Random notes:
I also noticed the upstream tarballs have started including a debian/
directory for a non-native packaging. Do you know what's up with that? I
could see why they would include it if they packaged it as a "native"
package but for non-native it just makes no sense. Could you talk to
upstream to figure out what's up with that? Feel free to CC me.
Just FYI: I'd appreciate git commits/patches on top of my repo above
instead of an updated dsc dump.
Thanks,
--Daniel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature