Bug#1010266: RFS: base16384/2.2.0-1 [ITP] -- Encode binary files to printable utf16be

[fumiama]

Thank you!

Bug#1010266: RFS: base16384/2.2.0-1 [ITP] -- Encode binary files to printable utf16be

[fumiama]

Control: tags 1010266 - moreinfo

Dear Bastian,

All issues that you have pointed out have been resolved now in the latest 
upload.

Cheers,
--
fumiama

Bug#1010266: RFS: base16384/2.2.0-1 [ITP] -- Encode binary files to printable utf16be

[Bastian Germann]

Control: tags -1 moreinfo

On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 14:40:29 +0800 fumiama wrote:

Dear Bastian,

Now I have separated and re-uploaded the package into 3 parts as below.

- base16384: The binary file.
-libbase16384-2: The library.
- libbase16384-2-dev: The header and archive.

I wonder whether it is exactly what you meant.

Regards,
--
fumiama

Hi Fumiama,

In d/copyright you have to record the upstream copyright statement for Files: *
which is "Copyright (c) 2022 Fumiama Minamoto".

I yould prefer you to write your full name at every other "fumiama" instance 
instead but that is your choice.

d/control
=
Please write a better Description for libbase16384-2. The .so file is not 
included there. lintian:
I: libbase16384-2: extended-description-is-probably-too-short

Use a the current debhelper-compat (= 13) instead of debhelper (>= 9) and get 
rid of the compat file.
This will eliminate:
W: base16384 source: no-versioned-debhelper-prerequisite 10
P: base16384 source: package-uses-old-debhelper-compat-version 10

lintian
===
Please fix at least the following of the remaining lintian messages:
W: libbase16384-2: shared-library-lacks-prerequisites 
[usr/lib/libbase16384.so.2.2.0]
I: base16384 source: older-debian-watch-file-standard 3 [debian/watch]
I: libbase16384-2: symbols-file-missing-build-depends-package-field 
libbase16384.so.2 [symbols]
I: libbase16384-2: wrong-section-according-to-package-name utils => libs
I: libbase16384-2-dev: wrong-section-according-to-package-name utils => libdevel

When you are done, please untag moreinfo.

Thanks,
Bastian

Bug#1010266: RFS: base16384/2.2.0-1 [ITP] -- Encode binary files to printable utf16be

[fumiama]

Dear Bastian,

Now I have separated and re-uploaded the package into 3 parts as below.

- base16384: The binary file.
-libbase16384-2: The library.
- libbase16384-2-dev: The header and archive.

I wonder whether it is exactly what you meant.

Regards,
--
fumiama

Bug#1010266: RFS: base16384/2.2.0-1 [ITP] -- Encode binary files to printable utf16be

[fumiama]

Seems I have mistaken your instruction.  I will re-upload later.




-- Original --
From: Bastian Germann 

Bug#1010266: RFS: base16384/2.2.0-1 [ITP] -- Encode binary files to printable utf16be

[Bastian Germann]

Am 19.07.22 um 14:20 schrieb fumiama:

Dear Bastian,

I had separated the package and re-uploaded it to mentors one month ago,
but it seems that no more instructions have been received since that,
thus, I send this mail to ask you if you have missed my former reply,
or the process is still going on.


The process is still ongoing but from the first look at your changes (a while ago) I remember that you have only added a 
-dev pacage and not a lib package.

Bug#1010266: RFS: base16384/2.2.0-1 [ITP] -- Encode binary files to printable utf16be

[fumiama]

Dear Bastian,

I had separated the package and re-uploaded it to mentors one month ago, 
but it seems that no more instructions have been received since that?9?8, 
thus, I send this mail to ask you if you have missed my former reply, 
or the process is still going on.

Regards,
--
fumiama

Bug#1010266: RFS: base16384/2.2.0-1 [ITP] -- Encode binary files to printable utf16be

[fumiama]

Control: tags 1010266 - moreinfo

Now I have separated the package and re-uploaded it to mentors.

Bug#1010266: RFS: base16384/2.2.0-1 [ITP] -- Encode binary files to printable utf16be

[fumiama]

Control: tags -1 moreinfo

gt; You may but I will not sponsor it then.

Ok, I will split a dev package later.

Bug#1010266: RFS: base16384/2.2.0-1 [ITP] -- Encode binary files to printable utf16be

[fumiama]

Control: tags -1 moreinfo

 You may but I will not sponsor it then.

Ok, I will split a dev package later.

Bug#1010266: RFS: base16384/2.2.0-1 [ITP] -- Encode binary files to printable utf16be

[Bastian Germann]

Am 03.06.22 um 06:10 schrieb fumiama:

Since this is actually a small package and may not have large changes on
its library that is really tiny, I thought separating it is a little useless and
will make it difficult in installing. May I continue without separating this 
package?


You may but I will not sponsor it then.

Bug#1010266: RFS: base16384/2.2.0-1 [ITP] -- Encode binary files to printable utf16be

[fumiama]

 When you want to pursue this any longer please make sure to separate the 
included library to a 
 library package and corresponding development package.

Dear Bastian,

I am fixing the issues mentioned in the review and reached this one. 
Actually I have noticed this problem in the lintian warnings but found 
this sentence in 
https://lintian.debian.org/tags/link-to-shared-library-in-wrong-package

 However, if this is a small package which includes the runtime 
 and the development libraries, this is not a bug.

Since this is actually a small package and may not have large changes on 
its library that is really tiny, I thought separating it is a little useless 
and 
will make it difficult in installing. May I continue without separating this 
package?

Regards,
--
  fumiama

Bug#1010266: RFS: base16384/2.2.0-1 [ITP] -- Encode binary files to printable utf16be

[Bastian Germann]

Control: tags -1 moreinfo

Hi fumiama,

As you are the upstream as well, can you please clarify the license and 
copyright situation?
It would be nice to have a file header on each file with the license info.
For example, traditional_ver/base16384.c says "MIT fumiama 20200416" in a 
comment but nowhere
is the MIT license to be found.

What is all that traditional_ver about? Can't you just remove it? I guess it is 
not compiled.

When you want to pursue this any longer please make sure to separate the 
included library to a
library package and corresponding development package.

Please make an upstream release that clarifies things and then base your next 
upload on that.

I am tagging moreinfo again.

Cheers,
Bastian

Bug#1010266: RFS: base16384/2.2.0-1 [ITP] -- Encode binary files to printable utf16be

[fumiama]

 Please create a watch file that can download the release that your package 
references.Currently, you do not provide the correct orig tarball for v2.2.0 
but some random git version.

Dear Bastian,

I have sent this email yesterday but didn't see it on the bug tracking system 
so I send this duplicate reply to you. If the previous message had arrived, 
please kindly ignore this interrupt.
I'm sorry for editing the original tarball since it contains a GitHub workflow. 
Now I have added the watch file and re-uploaded the package using the tarball 
downloaded by `uscan -d`. Hoping this is the correct operation.

Regards,
--
  fumiama