Hi Warren! Warren Turkal wrote:
> Kevin,
>
> Today is your lucky day. I addressed all of your bullet points along with a
> fun bonus. The new revision (1~pre7) is at [1]. I now think that 1~pre7 is
> ready for experimental after a revision change to 1.
Thanks for addressing all of these points! Unfortunately I've found
some new things to complain about :-) related to the tarball repackaging
and the new binary packages. (This is *not* an objection to either
thing that you've done; both are good ideas.)
> So you know, the orig.tar.gz has changed in this revision. I untarred it,
> ran ./configure && make distclean to get rid of some files, and tarred it
> back up.
OK.
One minor point is that the orig.tar.gz of a source package that was
modified for Debian (even just to repack it) should contain a directory
named
netcdf-3.6.2.orig
rather than
netcdf-3.6.2
although anyone downloading the source package with "apt-get source"
will still obtain a netcdf-3.6.2 directory.
Also, the debian directory (in the diff.gz) should contain a file named
"README.Debian-source" that describes how the repackaged orig.tar.gz
tarball was generated from the original upstream tarball. (In this case
you could basically just copy your second paragraph I quoted above into
that file :-) Note you don't need to install this file in the binary
.debs, just in the source package.
You can find these recommendations in section 6.7.8.2 of the Developers
Reference:
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging-practices.en.html#s-bpp-origtargz
> I have the netcdf-doc package in this revision. I moved the docs from
> libnetcdf-dev as well as the html docs into this package. Please check it
> out.
--> Close #321337 in debian/changelog then?
I did look into the -doc package and everything looks fine.
You may want to have libnetcdf-dev Suggest or Recommend netcdf-bin
and/or netcdf-doc, but this is optional; only do it if you think it's a
good idea.
Linda gives me three warnings, related to the new -doc and -dbg packages:
> W: netcdf-doc; This package ends in -doc, or -docs, and isn't in Section: doc
> This package is considered to be a documentation package, but is not
> contained in Section: doc. This may cause warnings from dinstall when
> you upload.
--> add "Section: doc" under the netcdf-doc stanza in debian/control
> W: netcdf-dbg; Long descriptions contains short description.
> The long description of this package contains the short description.
> This is a bad idea, as the long description should be long, and not
> just reiterate the short description.
--> This warning I think can be ignored, since you just have the short
description as part of a complete sentence in the long description.
> W: netcdf-dbg; There is no Depends: line in the control file.
> The package has no Depends: line in the control file. This is not
> allowed by Policy if the package in question contains binary objects.
> Perhaps try calling dpkg-shlibdeps or dh_shlibdeps in the package
> rules file.
--> Have netcdf-dbg Depend upon "libnetcdf4 (= ${binary:Version})"
--> Also, please give netcdf-dbg "Priority: extra" in debian/control
I think that overall the packages are in great shape, despite my
nitpicking. Please fix the points mentioned above, change the version
number to 3.6.2-1, and I will be happy to upload to experimental. Thanks
again for taking on this important science-related package; there cannot
be too many maintainers of science packages in Debian!
Finally, a couple ancillary questions:
The change of your maintainer address to the penguintechs dot org
address is intentional, right?
During the build, there are a lot of error messages of the form
"warning: enumeration value ‘NC_NAT’ not handled in switch". Is this
something that could be a problem? Maybe upstream would best know the
answer to this...
best regards,
--
Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Physics Department
WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/ Princeton University
GPG: public key ID 4F83C751 Princeton, NJ 08544
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
