Hello, and, (RFS) packaged!: rocaml (#451795)
Hi all,
I'm a software engineer from Australia, with special interest in OCaml,
Ruby, and functional programming in general. Nice to meet you!
I've been wanting to contribute to Debian for some time - and perhaps to
make my way along the path of contributor to DM and perhaps DD some day
- and today I decided to start on that path.
Having known about rocaml (writing extensions for Ruby in OCaml;
combination of my two favourites!) for some time, I was rather pleased
to see an RFP for it (from 2007) which has yet to be answered:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=451795
As a result, I've taken the time to read the Debian New Maintainers'
Guide and have packaged rocaml in a manner which I think is
satisfactory. I've test installed/uninstalled/purged, etc., and it seems
to leave the system clean. lintian, pbuilder and piuparts also seem to
concur.
The only iffy parts of this were that I actually had to write the main
binary (script), which essentially just copies the two main extension
files, plus a template extconf.rb (file used to specify Ruby extension
details), into the current directory, as it's packaged with just the
files in place and instructions to copy those into your working tree.
I've also added a manpage, basic Makefile to install appropriate things
into /usr/share/{doc/,}rocaml and so on, via quilt patches. I intend to
submit these changes back upstream (where not Debian-specific).
Here's where you come in: *if* you could possibly review and criticise
my work, I would be most appreciative. This is my first shot at
packaging, and I'm sure there are a few places where I could use a
pointer.
I've uploaded the package to mentors.debian.net, and changed it from an
RFP to an ITP on the BTS (while learning about how the BTS treats
word-wrap at the same time ...) - you can find the package here:
http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/sponsor-pkglist?action=details;package=rocaml
As per the template for RFS on mentors:
- URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/rocaml
- Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
main contrib non-free
- dget
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/rocaml/rocaml_0.6.1-1.dsc
Thanks a lot for reading, and hope to collaborate with you soon!
Cheers,
Arlen
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Hello, and, (RFS) packaged!: rocaml (#451795)
Hi Arlen, Thank you very much for your interest in Debian and I'm happy to welcome a new contributor! [...] Here's where you come in: *if* you could possibly review and criticise my work, I would be most appreciative. This is my first shot at packaging, and I'm sure there are a few places where I could use a pointer. [...] So here's some notes on your package: - I think your Suggests: should be upgraded to a Recommends:, because rocaml will be pretty useless without ruby and ocaml being installed. - Your package should be Architecture: all, there is nothing platform-specific in this package. - As this is a fresh package please consider to follow DEP-5 formatting guidelines for debian/copyright (http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/) - No need to ship GPL and LICENSE files, the information is in debian/copyright already. - You refer to rocaml as a binary when you really mean a script. - debian/README.source: Read the contents of the file and act accordingly :-) - I wonder whether you really need a Makefile; you could probably just do this via a debian/install and debian/dirs file; but that's a matter of taste. - The upstream package ships and example and a test directory. It might be good to make use of both of them (that is, ship examples with the Debian package and run tests at build time). - extconf.rb and all the examples and test files lack copyright and license information. Please pursue upstream to fix this right away, otherwise it cannot be distributed. Hope this helps, Michael pgpReMJWZOG4O.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Hello, and, (RFS) packaged!: rocaml (#451795)
Hi Arlen, On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 20:04 +1100, Arlen Christian Mart Cuss wrote: I'm a software engineer from Australia, with special interest in OCaml, Ruby, and functional programming in general. Nice to meet you! Nice to meet you too! Your RFS was a good overview so I decided to give it a quick look. It revealed three minor things: - you can delete /usr/share/doc/rocaml/LICENSE as everything is covered in debian/copyright; - however I may write that Mauricio Fernandez has the copyright since rocaml was coded: Copyright (C) 2007- [...]; - have you seen debian/README.source ? Thanks a lot for reading, and hope to collaborate with you soon! Please fix the issues mentioned above. Also please don't misunderstand me, I've no experience with Ruby so I won't upload your package. Thanks for your work, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1289729134.23214.6.ca...@julia.gcs.org.hu
Re: RFS: 9menu (updated package, Second try)
Hi, epsilon epsilo...@gmail.com writes: I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.8-4 of my package 9menu. Some comments: · Does the README provide any information relevant to the user that is not already provided elsewhere (e.g. in the copyright file)? If not, it should not be installed. · The older patches still have a dpatch header. It would be nice if they instead had an informative header similar to the one in your patch 06_Imakefile.diff. · About the changelog entries: Please do not just mention which files you touched (that can be seen in the diff), but describe a bit what (and why) you changed something. Especially group things you write by changes, not by file names: * Do not link with Xext: we do not use it. - Remove libxext-dev from Build-Depends. - New patch: 06_Imakefile.diff is more informative than * debian/control + Removed libxext-dev in B-D, it's not necessary * debian/patches/06_Imakefile.diff + Added, to fix dpkg-shlibdeps: warning where other people have to find the connection themselves. (Same for the switch from override_* targets to files in debian/.) Regards, Ansgar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87zktcryd8@marvin.43-1.org
Re: RFS: mediadownloader
Hi Michael, thank you a lot for your time, I really appreciate. Since I am new to this world, I still have some, maybe silly, questions. On 11/13/2010 09:54 AM, Michael Tautschnig wrote: Hi Marco, [...] (several previous reviews, you might want to acknowledge them in your changelog) do you mean thanking guys in this thread helped me to fix the package ? And put a line in debian/changelog ? But if so, I should also open a bug ? Here's some more notes on your package: - debian/control: I don't quite understand what you mean by , as well as mobile devices do. in your package description. You could probably also drop the URL, it's in the Homepage: field anyway. I mean tap and drag to scroll view as in mobile devices, by the way I removed that. - debian/copyright: To the best of my knowledge, a simpleGPL3 is not acceptable. The optimal solution would be to even go for a DEP-5 formatted copyright file, see http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ - debian/docs: lists README.txt twice - debian/rules: A debian/install (and maybe debian/dirs) should help to simplify your rules, I think. I think I have to dig into this. Could the package be acceptable without this ? - A number of source files lack copyright- and license-information. As you are upstream, this should be fairly easy to fix. Hope this helps, Michael thanks againg kind regards Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4cdfc960.3060...@gmail.com
Re: Hello, and, (RFS) packaged!: rocaml (#451795)
Hi Michael, On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 11:00 +0100, Michael Tautschnig wrote: Thank you very much for your interest in Debian and I'm happy to welcome a new contributor! Thank you very much! I appreciate it! :-) So here's some notes on your package: - I think your Suggests: should be upgraded to a Recommends:, because rocaml will be pretty useless without ruby and ocaml being installed. Good point. I should've paid closer attention to the semantic difference between the two. - Your package should be Architecture: all, there is nothing platform-specific in this package. Similarly, the difference between any/all had yet to catch my eye. Thanks! - As this is a fresh package please consider to follow DEP-5 formatting guidelines for debian/copyright (http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/) Nice! I'll do so. It seems a shame that dh_make's template `copyright' isn't in a format more amenable to DEP-5. I suppose it's not official policy yet. - No need to ship GPL and LICENSE files, the information is in debian/copyright already. An excellent point. - You refer to rocaml as a binary when you really mean a script. Yes - I think I kept thinking of `binary' as `anything executable,' whereas your distinction is correct. - debian/README.source: Read the contents of the file and act accordingly :-) I knew there would be _one_ obvious mistake like that ... - I wonder whether you really need a Makefile; you could probably just do this via a debian/install and debian/dirs file; but that's a matter of taste. Actually, it's nicer overall to let dpkg handle that for me, as you say. I'll probably rework it to do that before I try again. - The upstream package ships and example and a test directory. It might be good to make use of both of them (that is, ship examples with the Debian package and run tests at build time). Good point. The examples are already shipped, although they're installed through the Makefile currently. IIRC I can just use a debian/*.examples file to do that for me, so consider it done. - extconf.rb and all the examples and test files lack copyright and license information. Please pursue upstream to fix this right away, otherwise it cannot be distributed. Upstream contacted. When I clear this up, I'll update the package on mentors and return here. Thanks very much (again!) for your clear and concise guidepoints. It means a lot to me as someone very new to packaging :-) Hope this helps, Michael Cheers, Arlen signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Hello, and, (RFS) packaged!: rocaml (#451795)
Hi Laszlo, Thanks for your message! I appreciate you taking the time to look at my proposed package :-) I've removed LICENSE (and GPL), as well as debian/README.source as per Michael's suggestion also - thank you for your pointing them out. On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 11:05 +0100, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote: - however I may write that Mauricio Fernandez has the copyright since rocaml was coded: Copyright (C) 2007- [...]; This is a good point (and a nuanced one that I didn't think about enough). Thanks for this - it'll be updated accordingly on my next attempt. Please fix the issues mentioned above. Also please don't misunderstand me, I've no experience with Ruby so I won't upload your package. Shall do, and thanks again! There's no misunderstanding; I appreciate your taking the time out to look into something, even though you're not familiar with the topic of the package itself. :-) Thanks for your work, Laszlo/GCS Best, Arlen signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: pycam
Hi Benoît,
Here are the few issues I spotted in your package:
thank you for taking the time!
- You have debian/{postinst,prerm} scripts, but they do not do
anything. You should just delete them.
removed
- In debian/copyright, there is no email address for either of the
maintainers (and Sebastian Kuzminsky's email is not formatted
correctly). While you're at it, you should also add yourself to the
packaging copyright.
You may also want to use the DEP-5 format [1] for that file.
[1] http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/
I changed the copyright file according to DEP5. I did not know DEP5 before - so
thanks for pointing this out!
- lintian -I gives the following warnings:
[...]
I added the missing patch descriptions and created a watch file.
I: pycam: spelling-error-in-manpage usr/share/man/man1/pycam.1.gz
[...]
I fixed these spelling mistakes upstream. The changes will go into the debian
package of the next release of PyCAM.
btw: what did you do to generate these spelling warnings? I could not find any
reference to a spell checker in lintian ...
I guess, now the package should be in a good shape.
I would be happy, if anybody would be willing to upload it.
cheers,
Lars
PS: you don't need to CC me - I am subscribed to the mentors list
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101114165353.68287...@erker
Re: RFS: sima (autoqueue MPD client, find similar artists to queue)
Hi Dne Sat, 13 Nov 2010 15:55:49 +0100 Geoffroy Youri Berret ef...@azylum.org napsal(a): Le 12/11/2010 10:55, Michal Čihař a écrit : Dne Fri, 12 Nov 2010 10:30:51 +0100 Geoffroy Youri Berret ef...@azylum.org napsal(a): The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sima - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sima/sima_0.6.0-1.dsc The upstream tarball name is mpd_sima, maybe you want to name source package same way? Why have you modified the source tarball? I thought the underscore is not allowed. http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Source Anyone to confirm? You're right, but mpd-sima would work :-). Anyway it is not reason to recompress the tarball, dpkg-source renames in on unpacking, so you don't have to care about top level directory name -- Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: sima (autoqueue MPD client, find similar artists to queue)
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 10:03:46PM +0700, Paul Wise wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 6:12 PM, chrysn chr...@fsfe.org wrote:
PYTHONPATH=/usr/share/sima/:$PYTHONPATH
PYTHONPATH=/usr/share/sima/${PYTHONPATH:+:$PYTHONPATH}
i stand corrected -- thanks for pointing it out, and sorry for spreading
dangerous code.
chrysn
(who is just grepping for PYTHONPATH in his home directory)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: [Pkg-mozext-maintainers] RF[CS]: ubiquity (mozilla extension) in Debian
Am Montag, den 01.11.2010, 03:14 +0100 schrieb Gabriele Giacone:
3) ${xpi:Recommends} (= 3.6) doesn't work, because multiple items
could be generated. If you want versioned Recommends, mozilla-devscripts
needs to be adjusted.
It generates Recommends: iceweasel (= 3.6) which seems to be ok. What
multiple items do you mean in this case?
It depends on your build system (Debian vs Ubuntu) and on the
install.xpi file. For example, adblock-plus has iceweasel | icedove |
iceape | conkeror in Recommends. Don't rely that it will always be one
item. Use Recommends: iceweasel (= 3.6), ${xpi:Recommends} or file a
wishlist bug against mozilla-devscripts.
Probably you meant install.rdf.
I was forgetting that we're also packaging it for ubuntu and was
hardcoding just iceweasel (= 3.6) while you'd prefer adding
unversioned ${xpi:Recommends}.
On ubuntu, would this xpi generate more than one Recommends?
Yes, it would at least generate firefox | abrowser.
If it would
not, I'd set back initial ${xpi:Recommends} (= 3.6) which should work
on both worlds and postpone further changes to next upstream release or
until anyone closes the bug I just filed http://bugs.debian.org/602051
Maybe you'll close such bug before I find a sponsor.
--
Benjamin Drung
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: libgis - virtual globe library
Thanks for the comments so far, I've posted an updated set of packages to mentors.debian.net, here's a quick list of changes (I may be forgetting a few): - Added an ITP bug #603393 - Changed libgis-doc to arch:all - Converted debian/copyright to DEP-5 format - Removed .a files from libgis-dev.install - Fixed lintian errors (one info message left for no-symbols-control-file) - Removed ChangeLog from debian/docs - Improved library versioning - Renamed libgis package to libgis0 - Added -version-info to libgis.so - Moved plugins from /usr/lib/gis/ to /usr/lib/libgis0/ - Improved debian/control - Removed incorrect VCS links - Improved package descriptions - libgis-bin depends on shlibs:Depends not individual libraries - libgis-dev suggests libigs-doc - libgis-doc recommends libgis0 I also set up a git repository on my local machine for storing the Debian files using git-buildpackage. As David suggested, I would like to host them as part of the pkg-grass project and am looking into getting a repository on Alioth. Note, the new packages are called 0.4.2 instead of 0.4.1. These include a few changes to libgis to accommodate Debian packaging. I'm waiting for all the Debian changes to be finished before pushing a tag to libgis' git mirrors though. pgpzPPEptO62h.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: libgis - virtual globe library
On 2010-11-13 11:27, Benoît Knecht wrote:
- In debian/docs, remove the ChangeLog entry; it is installed and
gzipped automatically.
Fixed.
- You should delete debian/lintian.txt (after reading it :-) ).
Fixed.
- In debian/control, libgis-bin should depend on ${shlibs:Depends}
instead of listing all the libraries explicitly. And I don't think
libgis-doc should Depend on libgis (but it could Recommend it, and
libgis could Suggest libgis-doc).
Fixed, I set libgis-dev to suggest libgis-doc and libgis-doc to
recommend libgis0.
Also, this is slightly unrelated, but do you know why I get a lot of
errors of the form:
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on libfoo.so.0 could be avoided if
debian/libgis0/usr/lib/libgis0/map.so ... were not uselessly linked
against it (they use none of its symbols).
I've tried using -Wl,--as-needed hopping it would prevent these
warnings, but it doesn't seem to make any difference.
pgpEs2likV8pA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: 9menu (updated package, Second try)
Hi! · Does the README provide any information relevant to the user that is not already provided elsewhere (e.g. in the copyright file)? If not, it should not be installed. I think that the README file is very important in any package, the README file has important descriptive information and explain what each file does · The older patches still have a dpatch header. It would be nice if they instead had an informative header similar to the one in your patch 06_Imakefile.diff. Done! · About the changelog entries: Please do not just mention which files you touched (that can be seen in the diff), but describe a bit what (and why) you changed something. Especially group things you write by changes, not by file names: * Do not link with Xext: we do not use it. - Remove libxext-dev from Build-Depends. - New patch: 06_Imakefile.diff is more informative than * debian/control + Removed libxext-dev in B-D, it's not necessary * debian/patches/06_Imakefile.diff + Added, to fix dpkg-shlibdeps: warning where other people have to find the connection themselves. (Same for the switch from override_* targets to files in debian/.) Done! Please Checkout: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/9/9menu/9menu_1.8-4.dsc Regards Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ce0d9ec.3030...@gmail.com
