Hi IOhannes! Thanks a lot for the review! It really helps a lot!
El 20/05/14 12:36, "IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU)" ha escrit:
I tried it once, following the instructions on https://wiki.debian.org/PackagingWithGit, but decided against using it. It didn't simplify my work, but instead cluttered up my repository with the upstream source files. I don't get the point of having upstream files in the repository, if you're not allowed to touch them directly (only via patches).your Vcs: cool that you are using git. but your workflow seems to be somewhat non-standard (only tracking debian/ in git). we usually track the entire package in git, which includes pristine-tarballs from upstream [1]. this eases integration with gbp a lot.
Anyway, I can adopt the more "standardized" workflow, if it helps the collaboration with others. Will look into it.
I simply didn't use a repo yet, when I created the debian/control file. Done: https://github.com/martin-steghoefer/debian-karlyriceditor/commit/abfbc647debian/control: - Vcs-Stanzas: seem to be missing (most likely because you would like to move the packaging to a more "debian" repo?)
What would be a "more 'debian' repo"? Just using the workflow mentioned on https://wiki.debian.org/PackagingWithGit? Or another repo host?
This was mainly taken from upstream. Tried to improve the readability: https://github.com/martin-steghoefer/debian-karlyriceditor/commit/bdf960a4- Description: all those acronyms don't mean anything to me; also "support for foo and bar specifics" sounds weird to me. should that read "supports formats foo and bar"?
- Depends:
are all those manual dependencies really needed? why can't they be
calculated from by ${shlibs:Depends}
I understand, makes sense. Reduced the changelog: https://github.com/martin-steghoefer/debian-karlyriceditor/commit/a21356c5debian/changelog: usually debian/changelog for an initial upload will only contain a single line: "* Initial release (Closes: #692968)" the purpose of this changelog is to report the changes in the packaging with regard to the last upload. since there is none, you merge all those changes into "initial packaging". also, changelog entries should only document versions uploaded to debian. since 1.3-1 never made it, there is no use documenting it.
I had tried that before, but failed. The problem was that the filename of the upstream changelog was still in the "docs" file. Removed it: https://github.com/martin-steghoefer/debian-karlyriceditor/commit/aa0df552debian/rules: there's some cruft involved here, to include upstream's changelog. check out dh_installchangelogs.
Done: https://github.com/martin-steghoefer/debian-karlyriceditor/commit/c13d1959debian/copyright: - Source: the debian/copyright is supposed to not change between upstream-releases if there are no changes in the copyrights. this means that you should provide a version-independent link to the sources, e.g.: http://sourceforge.net/projects/karlyriceditor/files
Really awkward mistake. That information is from another project and got mixed up. Corrected it (same commit): https://github.com/martin-steghoefer/debian-karlyriceditor/commit/c13d1959- License: according to `licensecheck` all files (with the exception of ./build-*.sh and ./nsis/create_installer.sh which do not have a license boilerplate) are really GPL-3+ you claim that all files are copyright "2003-2005 James Klicman <[email protected]>", of whom i cannot find any references in any file (but debian/copyright). this may indicate that you did some extra research. however, all files (excluding those mentioned above) have an explicit copyright notice "2009-2013 George Yunaev". some have an additional copyright "2009-2010 Daniel Roggen".
True that. Didn't know this was allowed. Done (same commit): https://github.com/martin-steghoefer/debian-karlyriceditor/commit/c13d1959i find it easier to read if all the license-texts are collected at the end of debian/copyright. something like <snip> Files: * Copyright: 2000-2001, John Doe License: foo Files: debian/* Copyright: 2042, Mimi Minus License: foo License: foo this is a foo license... </snip>
Exactly, it was libav10. The last time I worked on the package, it was still working. But now, after an "apt-get dist-upgrade" it broke. Some deprecated functions in Libav that got removed. Patched it: https://github.com/martin-steghoefer/debian-karlyriceditor/commit/7bf48cda I also patched other deprecated functions to avoid breakage at the next Libav update: https://github.com/martin-steghoefer/debian-karlyriceditor/commit/b84ce255finally: the package FTBFS in a pristine sid environment (using pbuilder/git-buildpackage). most likely the package is needs some work for libav10.
Thanks again for your review! It really pushed the package! Any ideas on how to go on now?
New upload to mentors: http://mentors.debian.net/package/karlyriceditor Cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
