Bug#961417: RFS: libudfread/1.0.0-1 -- UDF reader library
Hi Mattia! Good to know you are back! Hope you are well :) >Mhh, would you please instead consider joining it now, rather than move >stuff around later? I don't think I saw your joining mail in the last >20 days (sorry for ghosting - I had some personal matters going on). >Then, I notice that you are bumping the version while uploading to >mentors. In the end we shall only upload a -1 with only one changelog >entry to the archive, so feel free to just remove and re-upload the -1 >version to mentors (IIRC you can also just re-upload the same version >and it would overwrite it). I fixed the versioning and maintainership of the package and re-uploaded it cleanly as 1.0.0-1 targeting unstable (since I know now that experimental is basically unstable + some NEW queue with breaking changes) I will reopen this bug now & send an 'official' team join request. Now, after I overhauled Kodi package (including copyrights) and made it and all deps building and running on buster-bpo, I think I am eligible to join :) -- Vasyl Gello == Certified SolidWorks Expert Mob.:+380 (98) 465 66 77 E-Mail: vasek.ge...@gmail.com Skype: vasek.gello == 호랑이는 죽어서 가죽을 남기고 사람은 죽어서 이름을 남긴다
Bug#961417: RFS: libudfread/1.0.0-1 -- UDF reader library
On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 01:39:10PM +, Vasyl Gello wrote: > >* d/control: > > + Vcs-* have to point to the packaging repository, not the upstream > > one. Since this is something maintained by the multimedia team > > (according to Maintainer) it should have a repo within the multimedia > > team space. > > Fixed by setting Maintainer to me until I get into the team. I have not even > raised > the application intent yet. Mhh, would you please instead consider joining it now, rather than move stuff around later? I don't think I saw your joining mail in the last 20 days (sorry for ghosting - I had some personal matters going on). > >* libudfread-dev.install > > + you are installing the .a file: do you really need it? As a personal > > policy I try to remove static libraries rather than adding them… > > I often link software statically, especially targeting Android. > So I guess keeping static library won't hurt as part of -dev > package. I see that you removed it following pabs' suggestion. Well, just know that whilst I generally agree with him that static libraries are usually just an old renmant and they should be avoided, I also consider them alright if somebody really need them (as long as they are not used to statically link stuff within the archive). Then, I notice that you are bumping the version while uploading to mentors. In the end we shall only upload a -1 with only one changelog entry to the archive, so feel free to just remove and re-upload the -1 version to mentors (IIRC you can also just re-upload the same version and it would overwrite it). -- regards, Mattia Rizzolo GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`. More about me: https://mapreri.org : :' : Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'` Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#961417: RFS: libudfread/1.0.0-1 -- UDF reader library
On Mon, 2020-06-01 at 14:18 +, Vasyl Gello wrote: > So static libs present in packages like popt are remnants of the past > and the general practice now is to discourage shipping all kinds of > static libraries unless it is Go/OCaml… as mentioned in this wiki > page? Right. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#961417: RFS: libudfread/1.0.0-1 -- UDF reader library
Hi Paul! So static libs present in packages like popt are remnants of the past and the general practice now is to discourage shipping all kinds of static libraries unless it is Go/OCaml… as mentioned in this wiki page? I looked at it before, but I try understanding what is considered best practices now. -- Vasyl Gello June 1, 2020 1:57:09 PM UTC, Paul Wise написав(-ла): >On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 1:42 PM Vasyl Gello wrote: > >> I often link software statically, especially targeting Android. >> So I guess keeping static library won't hurt as part of -dev >> package. > >Where dynamic libraries are available there are usually only downsides >to static libraries, in Debian we try to not distribute static >libraries unless there is a good reason. > >https://wiki.debian.org/StaticLinking > >-- >bye, >pabs > >https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#961417: RFS: libudfread/1.0.0-1 -- UDF reader library
On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 1:42 PM Vasyl Gello wrote: > I often link software statically, especially targeting Android. > So I guess keeping static library won't hurt as part of -dev > package. Where dynamic libraries are available there are usually only downsides to static libraries, in Debian we try to not distribute static libraries unless there is a good reason. https://wiki.debian.org/StaticLinking -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Bug#961417: RFS: libudfread/1.0.0-1 -- UDF reader library
>* d/control: > + Vcs-* have to point to the packaging repository, not the upstream > one. Since this is something maintained by the multimedia team > (according to Maintainer) it should have a repo within the multimedia > team space. Fixed by setting Maintainer to me until I get into the team. I have not even raised the application intent yet. > + Homepage points to the upstream VCS: doesn't this project have a real > homepage? Well, it is, but it is sometimes not accessible. Added it anyway. > + Both descriptions are way way too short (1 line). please strive to > find at least 3 lines... >* d/*.dirs > + those two files are totally useless, get rid of them Shot them dead ;) >* libudfread-dev.install > + you are installing the .a file: do you really need it? As a personal > policy I try to remove static libraries rather than adding them… I often link software statically, especially targeting Android. So I guess keeping static library won't hurt as part of -dev package. >* d/changelog: > + Please add the "Initial upload" words in there :) Doen :) >* d/rules: > + since you are using dh compat 13, you can go and use > "execute_before_dh_installexamples" instead of the current override > + you may prefer to add that .la file in d/not-installed instead of > overriding dh_missing that way (also relevant if you stop installing > the .a file). >* d/copyright: Good catch, thanks! Now I can keep not-installable things sane. > + I see that debian/* has a different license than the rest of the > package. Theoretically that might cause issue if for example sombody > writes a patch for debian, place it under the debian/* license (GPL2+ > in this case). That patch then it would taint the upstream license, > as combining code with LGPL2.1 and GPL2+ leads to something that is > only GPL2+, likely something that upstream wouldn't want. > + furthermore, the project is not released under LGPL-2.1, but > LGPL-2.1+ ... please pay attention to these details Yes, I double-checked their licenses and fixed d/copyright > + in the copyright you wrote "2014-2020 VLC authors and VideoLAN", but > I can't find any year later than 2017. Lastly, I see all files have > only one "Author:" listead in them, I'd find nice if you added at > least a Comment: line in that "Files: *" paragraph mentioning that > single author. Done > + you missed m4/attributes.m4 - please take note that that GPL-2+ file > has a special exception Done >* you uploaded a .asc file, but you have not provided either public > signing key in d/upstream/signing-key.asc nor set an appropriate pgp > option in d/watch. Nor I can find any signature on the upstream > repository (note that I haven't tried to check the signature). Where > is it coming from? It was my signature as recommended in one of thousand Debian Wiki pages I read. As you clarified in pr8vate, this was useless so I recreated repo and pushed the fixed package to mentors queue. Thanks for review! :) -- Vasyl Gello
Bug#961417: RFS: libudfread/1.0.0-1 -- UDF reader library
Control: owner -1 ! Control: tag -1 moreinfo On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 12:11:42PM +, Vasyl Gello wrote: > dget -x > https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libu/libudfread/libudfread_1.0.0-1.dsc * d/control: + Vcs-* have to point to the packaging repository, not the upstream one. Since this is something maintained by the multimedia team (according to Maintainer) it should have a repo within the multimedia team space. + Homepage points to the upstream VCS: doesn't this project have a real homepage? + Both descriptions are way way too short (1 line). please strive to find at least 3 lines... * d/*.dirs + those two files are totally useless, get rid of them * libudfread-dev.install + you are installing the .a file: do you really need it? As a personal policy I try to remove static libraries rather than adding them… * d/changelog: + Please add the "Initial upload" words in there :) * d/rules: + since you are using dh compat 13, you can go and use "execute_before_dh_installexamples" instead of the current override + you may prefer to add that .la file in d/not-installed instead of overriding dh_missing that way (also relevant if you stop installing the .a file). * d/copyright: + I see that debian/* has a different license than the rest of the package. Theoretically that might cause issue if for example sombody writes a patch for debian, place it under the debian/* license (GPL2+ in this case). That patch then it would taint the upstream license, as combining code with LGPL2.1 and GPL2+ leads to something that is only GPL2+, likely something that upstream wouldn't want. + furthermore, the project is not released under LGPL-2.1, but LGPL-2.1+ ... please pay attention to these details + in the copyright you wrote "2014-2020 VLC authors and VideoLAN", but I can't find any year later than 2017. Lastly, I see all files have only one "Author:" listead in them, I'd find nice if you added at least a Comment: line in that "Files: *" paragraph mentioning that single author. + you missed m4/attributes.m4 - please take note that that GPL-2+ file has a special exception * you uploaded a .asc file, but you have not provided either public signing key in d/upstream/signing-key.asc nor set an appropriate pgp option in d/watch. Nor I can find any signature on the upstream repository (note that I haven't tried to check the signature). Where is it coming from? -- regards, Mattia Rizzolo GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`. More about me: https://mapreri.org : :' : Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'` Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#961417: RFS: libudfread/1.0.0-1 -- UDF reader library
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "libudfread" * Package name: libudfread Version : 1.0.0-1 Upstream Author : VideoLAN Project * URL : https://code.videolan.org/videolan/libudfread * License : LGPL-2.1 * Vcs : https://code.videolan.org/videolan/libudfread Section : libs It builds those binary packages: libudfread0 - UDF reader library libudfread-dev - Development headers for UDF reader library To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/libudfread Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libu/libudfread/libudfread_1.0.0-1.dsc Changes since the last upload: * Closes: 781399 Regards, -- Vasyl Gello signature.asc Description: PGP signature
