Hi, thanks you for your message. I run lintian as follow: lintian -E -I --pedantic, so now I also will use the -i option. I've fixed some warning but I can't for one of them.
I'm sorry but I don't understand this one: I: spview source: debian-watch-contains-dh_make-template (line 2) N: N: The watch file contains a standard template included by dh_make. Please N: remove them once you have implemented the watch file. N: N: Severity: wishlist, Certainty: certain N: N: Check: debian/watch, Type: source N: I don't understand why the watch file depends of dh_make in this case. For the java issue I will ask to the appropriate mailing list. Thank you again. De: "Stuart Prescott" <[email protected]> À: "debian-science" <[email protected]> Cc: "Cyril Richard" <[email protected]> Envoyé: Samedi 28 Septembre 2019 05:55:37 Objet: Re: Need review of my package Hi! As a first step, do you run lintian in a verbose mode (--info) or do you use lintian-info? Just in case you didn't know, lintian often has a really good explanation of the tag, some references for more reading and often info about how to fix the problem too. > P: spview source: rules-requires-root-missing $ lintian-info -t rules-requires-root-missing P: rules-requires-root-missing N: N: The debian/control file is missing an explicit Rules-Requires-Root N: field. N: N: Traditionally, Debian packages have required root privileges for some N: debian/rules target requiring a split between build and binary N: targets. This makes the builds slower due to the increased amount of N: invocations as well as the overhead of fakeroot itself. N: N: Please specify (eg.) Rules-Requires-Root: no in the debian/control N: source stanza, but packagers should verify using diffoscope(1) that N: the binaries built with this field present are identical. N: N: Refer to /usr/share/doc/dpkg-dev/rootless-builds.txt.gz, Debian Policy N: Manual section 4.9.2 (debian/rules and Rules-Requires-Root), and N: Debian Policy Manual section 5.6.31 (Rules-Requires-Root) for details. N: N: Severity: pedantic, Certainty: certain N: N: Check: debian/control, Type: source N: Very few packages actually need to be built as root (or even with fakeroot) so adding "Rules-Requires-Root: no" to the first stanza of debian/control tells the build system not to do this. Building is (slightly) faster in this mode and not building as root can actually make some test suites work better. > W: spview source: inconsistent-appstream-metadata-license > debian/spview.appdata.xml (cc0-1.0 != gpl-3+) This is about comparing metadata_license (which is the licence for the spview.appdata.xml file) and what the package says in debian/copyright about spview.appdata.xml. If you look at the debian/copyright in the package, it is asserting that the appstream file is GPL-3+ (by virtual of the Files: * paragraph). It's normal for the appstream data to be CC0 and documenting that in debian/copyright is the consequence. > I: spview source: testsuite-autopkgtest-missing BTW if you can add something that is at least a smoke test of the jar then that would be great (something that fails due to the manifest as you write below, for instance!). Even better if the application has a test suite that can be run against the installed jar. > Then, after all these things, it appears that my app does not work. After > installation I have: no main manifest attribute, in > /usr/share/java/spview.jar How does the user execute the jar? If you've got a wrapper script then you can call the explicit class name that should be instantiated from the jar. I can't spot anything wrong in your d/rules but then my java building skills have not kept up with the plethora of build system out there for java.... the debian- java mailing list or #debian-java on irc.debian.org / irc.oftc.net might be a better place to ask. Stuart -- Stuart Prescott http://www.nanonanonano.net/ [email protected] Debian Developer http://www.debian.org/ [email protected] GPG fingerprint 90E2 D2C1 AD14 6A1B 7EBB 891D BBC1 7EBB 1396 F2F7
