Re: RFS: RHash - Utility for computing hash sums and magnet links
Hi Arno, On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 01:19 +0200, Arno Töll wrote: -(snip)- * Do you really need the minor version in the SONAME (and hence correctly reflected in the package name)? It is not wrong to do so, but since your package is new and your both, major and minor version are 0 you could probably just use the major version instead of an odd name like librhash0.0. the package name should be in sync with SONAME - no matter what ugly or nice that makes the (binary) package name. There is a naming convention for library packages and not a popularity contest for the nicest naming of a new library package documented in Debian Policy. See http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html for details (first paragraph of 8.1). That being said, as Alexey is the upstream himself he can surely decide what's the most suitable SONAME that will work for his upstream source and Debian package. -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: RHash - Utility for computing hash sums and magnet links
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Kilian, On 09.06.2011 09:28, Kilian Krause wrote: the package name should be in sync with SONAME - no matter what ugly or nice that makes the (binary) package name. ... That being said, as Alexey is the upstream himself he can surely decide what's the most suitable SONAME ... this is exactly what I meant. I think I pointed out, the package name is correct by the constraints the policy requires. I guess I could have been clearer though, so thank you for clarification. - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJN8HdaAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtv24P/2/q/WVE8nhHeJAuQZ0psiKS FdRktj7M4iIDQg0q+t97G8kMXergWji3WwUTfTo47RV1dN9h7bQrYtUerF8f126L lpozWI9OJq2wCJpuioBIIVXm3xOmcq+5WqtoqtAeIpHAadF1ACOzq16D267/YWER 2hzhm0Wr7UYFw2XZDdJdyp7OZWpjpEIRcJQQtX/U8GrbTQUSqOuHACxhbnKsVPoH uy4CWJKCe0BZQzCCDZgEmv/E4ihmR9XO3oasTNj/mWlwY6O+cX97OwAla+Sfenfi UA9gYJGQ6T7zx0FcaOYoAuZc4AqezbvgCl3Kw1JXAeCGM5WnHyhINJ+PMYqnf3Aj +24hmoTFi1k1S30vxJ9KjJTxWigT/DKMsbqkBnhOh1DJfR0h7I8F4fH90e7NDhaO URx5nYJ17hX+Vl9U+0EXyfXcaqaWm5HjPkTa84CUj1DvcyTNkcqZmn3lwX9DZmud 6H0jj+Ko/2owyivH+TvU66d4x+BIgJiCnr3HCUOUdDXMBbSqPyj9lbVY7qqMmMVI bDmk4S3NfY9A4tp6S1yKt9MQ2mCzecc6oFhGsR9ehYvOi3hdHwJd3riMWpOdWoFO uQD8yVcM8hJhkfvADcE2UzTSxj6T6Le+1Tvpf0/cwIMKtDmENjDL82ZKhuVlYFKP N5XOecU7GrfnORzjij3q =9DMz -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/4df0775a.7070...@toell.net
Re: RFS: RHash - Utility for computing hash sums and magnet links
Hi Arno, thanks for the review! I've done several changes, you proposed, partially added the README.Debian with explanation on the SONAME change. Some notes: * Please push debhelper compatibility to version 8 (debian/compat, debian/control), see debhelper(7). Ok, switched to 8th version for auto-running dpkg-gensymbols, but some DDs (on #d-mentor) prefer to package with 7th debhelper to simplify backporting. * I'm not sure what I should think about debian/Makefile-rhash-1.2.6rc1. Why didn't you merge those changes with your upstream Makefile, since you are upstream yourself? If you really want to keep it out of your upstream source, please use a quilt patch [3] instead. The Makefile-rhash-1.2.6rc1 is already upstream. The RHash v1.2.6 is actively developed and can't be released half-done. This Makefile is needed, cause it has better support for SONAME and library installation/testing. It helped to write better rules file. You sound reasonable about making quilt patch, but putting auxiliary file into debian is much simpler, than hunting lintian warnings on absent source/option file. That way I can concentrate on development instead of packaging issues. * Your upstream sources are missing copyright headers. Please consider adding them. There is already Copyleft license file! Why do I need to add Copyrights? :) Your debian/copyright provides conflicting license headers. I'm aware yor package is dual-licensed, see DEP-5 on how to specify such use cases If it is not reported by lintian, then it doesn't look like official requirement. :) I've fixed the mentioned file anyway. P.S. still looking for a Sponsor 09.06.2011 6:19, Arno Töll wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Alexey, On 08.06.2011 11:55, rhash.admin wrote: Hello! I need a sponsor for the rhash package! http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/sponsor-pkglist?action=details;package=rhash a few notes about your package you may want to consider (I'm no DD, so I can't sponsor you though): * debian/changelog: Please don't explain in the changelog what your package is for. We have a short and a long description for that. See [1] for some hints. You should neither mention the SONAME change there unless you changed it for the Debian package exclusively. If the latter you might want to elaborate the reason in a README.Debian file. * Please push debhelper compatibility to version 8 (debian/compat, debian/control), see debhelper(7). * debian/control: It is considered a best practice to have VCS links in debian/control which point to the repository where you develop the Debian package. See [2]. * Do you really need the minor version in the SONAME (and hence correctly reflected in the package name)? It is not wrong to do so, but since your package is new and your both, major and minor version are 0 you could probably just use the major version instead of an odd name like librhash0.0. * You replicate the package priority for your binary packages when compared to the source package in debian/control. No need for that unless you change priorities for binary packages. * I'm not sure what I should think about debian/Makefile-rhash-1.2.6rc1. Why didn't you merge those changes with your upstream Makefile, since you are upstream yourself? If you really want to keep it out of your upstream source, please use a quilt patch [3] instead. * Your upstream sources are missing copyright headers. Please consider adding them. * You could earn some bonus points for shipping a symbol file, see dpkg-gensymbols(1) * Your package synopsis should not start with an upper case letter, see [4]. Long description is fine, but I'm not entirely happy with the synopsis lines for each package. Tastes may vary. * Your debian/copyright provides conflicting license headers. I'm aware yor package is dual-licensed, see DEP-5 on how to specify such use cases, Syntax in [5]. Also consider the MIT hint mentioned in DEP-5. Moreover don't use hash marks like programming style comments, use the Comment header instead. * You ship some cryptographic algorithms, I hope you checked all legal issues with that? [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-debian-changelog [2] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-vcs [3] http://wiki.debian.org/UsingQuilt, among others [4] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-desc-basics [5] http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJN8ANxAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtDugP/2Ytoi0rmN529vJaMSFT6LrR 4aFIK2OD1VTUmHg9vdlWkUnqdq9DdSxJte6b4pl1gyjGMHrg6kK7fk758QQexNBd xLmHiC2+cPCnC/Hhh4BJovViZzYm37p8E3uarzWhp81hzyrK8OrvhPppkb4M50wn
Re: RFS: RHash - Utility for computing hash sums and magnet links
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Alexey, On 09.06.2011 12:45, rhash.admin wrote: Ok, switched to 8th version for auto-running dpkg-gensymbols, but some DDs (on #d-mentor) prefer to package with 7th debhelper to simplify backporting. That's right for oldstable. But Lenny is about to become obsolete in a forseeable future and your package will most likely not enter Lenny anyway. However for Squeeze dh 8 compatibility is fine [1] * Your upstream sources are missing copyright headers. Please consider adding them. There is already Copyleft license file! Why do I need to add Copyrights? :) You can also add copyleft headers if you care about the wording : Your debian/copyright provides conflicting license headers. I'm aware yor package is dual-licensed, see DEP-5 on how to specify such use cases If it is not reported by lintian, then it doesn't look like official requirement. :) Because DEP-5 is not a requirement at all. DEP-5 is a proposal on its way to become an official standard which is then most likely reflected in the policy. Until then Lintian probably won't croak (or care). It is a good idea to start with DEP-5 for new packages but no constraint. If you do, you should do it right though nonetheless. :) Moreover Lintian is not omnipotent (in hope, Niels won't read that :)) and possibly has missing or incomplete checks. [1] http://packages.qa.debian.org/d/debhelper.html - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJN8KnbAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtbvAP/ifi2y1+gngBDvYrOXfdN6Rr Q9vs3DxfkqS6eYE3ZWP+iqDxf6aEk2zvAWSQ9k58ReQXAONd3qvk4V/q1FVpTArb ZStGvcJuI1Ef1JQnhO3K59KCSZHkgWxC2HGHvXF8ZDnM2DlvA/e6Ewl/8CbuDTwF cvM8JaGVsYplKxOsiMD8E+oL1TaGV2VeQmtt3aVGHh9bnqGFzLDUfxbQMCIjAPJY nwNWssszQqFbUCZuspfqsnyHM7xWUx3I4G+ZSkHJ63W/m4JmekQmZg35Ns4/Er24 hUcF5F2wIx7sBLYsyPDOV4CoX3CHCpXYuUmXZsPPB9OQiuTYb+yupqXVSmrCFReN /5mQlw7gXEITIw+E9AJmgMZUuRLT2DO/yccpWe+hkDBHiatowlW5gI/c9raE7iqT StNIucvN9m1S5hunhdTFxHdGRp+Vwq9DTjBDRm1G/zvl1JsjCXR6kTQOtQcMD8Rh mOKn4hz+LsEvP9+jspZYvHtidvIsZgK4SJ0xjvGn217CH87odvkT0V8zKm607fzQ vrvt2RoFurvxIuNWumv26fM2lpRCv49o48/fYCCd77idNaHu2/vwHezCWe2GblUD iYHtkCVDZ1vjB1PCPFW24/nq2XtwjX2zO88V2Gm4EFkQxP7IQPcK3MsJt9LSNATN wDZnodGcNpXcEGrUCWR3 =p+Ki -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/4df0a9db.1030...@toell.net
Re: RFS: RHash - Utility for computing hash sums and magnet links
Hi Alexey, On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 17:45 +0700, rhash.admin wrote: P.S. still looking for a Sponsor where is the new and updated dsc? Same location? -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: RHash - Utility for computing hash sums and magnet links
Hello! http://mentors.debian.net http://mentors.debian.net/ gone down, so can't check if server accepted the package, though dupload has finished successfuly. 09.06.2011 18:30, Kilian Krause wrote: Hi Alexey, On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 17:45 +0700, rhash.admin wrote: P.S. still looking for a Sponsor where is the new and updated dsc? Same location?
Re: RFS: RHash - Utility for computing hash sums and magnet links
Hello! I was pointed that *rhash* packages are currently sitting unprocessed on ftp://mentors.debian.net/ E.g. ftp://mentors.debian.net/rhash_1.2.5-1.dsc 09.06.2011 18:30, Kilian Krause wrote: Hi Alexey, On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 17:45 +0700, rhash.admin wrote: P.S. still looking for a Sponsor where is the new and updated dsc? Same location? -- 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/4df0b3b1.4020...@gmail.com
Re: RFS: RHash - Utility for computing hash sums and magnet links
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 01:09:15PM +0200, Arno Töll wrote: On 09.06.2011 12:45, rhash.admin wrote: Hi, Ok, switched to 8th version for auto-running dpkg-gensymbols, but some DDs (on #d-mentor) prefer to package with 7th debhelper to simplify backporting. That's right for oldstable. But Lenny is about to become obsolete in a forseeable future and your package will most likely not enter Lenny anyway. However for Squeeze dh 8 compatibility is fine [1] debhelper | 8.0.0~bpo50+2 | backports/lenny | source, all Depending on debhelper 8.0.0~ could be used to make this possible if wished for. I for one don't get it either why people propose packages with old standards version and compat level. IMO one should be kind of prepared for the future now and not slack on such things just because they still work and I don't have to check what's been changed in the requirements. Sven -- And I don't know much, but I do know this: With a golden heart comes a rebel fist. [ Streetlight Manifesto - Here's To Life ] -- 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/20110609133711.GA3169@marvin
RFS: RHash - Utility for computing hash sums and magnet links
Hello! I need a sponsor for the rhash package! http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/sponsor-pkglist?action=details;package=rhash Package name: rhash Version : 1.2.5 Upstream Author : Alexey rhash.ad...@gmail.com URL : http://rhash.sourceforge.net/ License : MIT http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php Programming Lang: C RHash is powerful professional utility, supporting a wide range of hashing algorithms, such as CRC32, MD4, MD5, SHA1/SHA2, Tiger, TTH, BitTorrent BTIH, AICH, ED2K, GOST R 34.11-94, RIPEMD-160, HAS-160, EDON-R 256/512, Whirlpool, Snefru. Features: * Output in a predefined (SFV, BSD) or a user-defined format. * Can calculate Magnet links and EDonkey 2000 links. * Updating hash files (adding hash sums of files missing in the hashfile). * Ability to process directories recursively. * Portability: the program works the same on Linux, *BSD or Windows. The LibRHash library is lightweight, thread-safe and easy to learn. It is used by several open source applications. -- 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/4def471e.9070...@gmail.com
Re: RFS: RHash - Utility for computing hash sums and magnet links
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Alexey, On 08.06.2011 11:55, rhash.admin wrote: Hello! I need a sponsor for the rhash package! http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/sponsor-pkglist?action=details;package=rhash a few notes about your package you may want to consider (I'm no DD, so I can't sponsor you though): * debian/changelog: Please don't explain in the changelog what your package is for. We have a short and a long description for that. See [1] for some hints. You should neither mention the SONAME change there unless you changed it for the Debian package exclusively. If the latter you might want to elaborate the reason in a README.Debian file. * Please push debhelper compatibility to version 8 (debian/compat, debian/control), see debhelper(7). * debian/control: It is considered a best practice to have VCS links in debian/control which point to the repository where you develop the Debian package. See [2]. * Do you really need the minor version in the SONAME (and hence correctly reflected in the package name)? It is not wrong to do so, but since your package is new and your both, major and minor version are 0 you could probably just use the major version instead of an odd name like librhash0.0. * You replicate the package priority for your binary packages when compared to the source package in debian/control. No need for that unless you change priorities for binary packages. * I'm not sure what I should think about debian/Makefile-rhash-1.2.6rc1. Why didn't you merge those changes with your upstream Makefile, since you are upstream yourself? If you really want to keep it out of your upstream source, please use a quilt patch [3] instead. * Your upstream sources are missing copyright headers. Please consider adding them. * You could earn some bonus points for shipping a symbol file, see dpkg-gensymbols(1) * Your package synopsis should not start with an upper case letter, see [4]. Long description is fine, but I'm not entirely happy with the synopsis lines for each package. Tastes may vary. * Your debian/copyright provides conflicting license headers. I'm aware yor package is dual-licensed, see DEP-5 on how to specify such use cases, Syntax in [5]. Also consider the MIT hint mentioned in DEP-5. Moreover don't use hash marks like programming style comments, use the Comment header instead. * You ship some cryptographic algorithms, I hope you checked all legal issues with that? [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-debian-changelog [2] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-vcs [3] http://wiki.debian.org/UsingQuilt, among others [4] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-desc-basics [5] http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJN8ANxAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtDugP/2Ytoi0rmN529vJaMSFT6LrR 4aFIK2OD1VTUmHg9vdlWkUnqdq9DdSxJte6b4pl1gyjGMHrg6kK7fk758QQexNBd xLmHiC2+cPCnC/Hhh4BJovViZzYm37p8E3uarzWhp81hzyrK8OrvhPppkb4M50wn n0+hVrSYRvVmEn3lI/YR7meQXaysK4HFNfogICCPJvUadJKJJqTmdPG/zzf1h1dq n2AqNrgnpZlZeSsPQEFvquSV94vpqyU+XdEZNTxdO6GHzQq6wD5lrG/Y8PiSBv5z LxvcAwmO6Owd5QXO4JFtGn1kneMgVDn9kK9PeESO79niAY2AbjGWRp4P0UccIgI+ yZ7woE7f9x4BcdVcZtk3lmtfdCZZspuPUwKeBDIpMRXQgjAqT7+4lUDW7g9DMmwa LnST9L+0XzG2s9EANNfVyL5wJKHXe5eioq0U2TQ8ShCZCtfhn6smYcrR04wRKHnH wJb1LYsPH3ygJGmEtEbBga0H+9+aY3zr7ZoM3hjI1veqna+N8SQ5YXrr34sYPNyz Ji1r4KQ5Mjewq85fvM/VLAlXKebdZ34FAqPrazCQHVuZzMRtVPqgFpcVi336S3n3 KDIl5IpcrBabmf05APOmhkIzqXjReyihFNqUWQjXm+gFUJjhyM6kTZhm+Wx4eFyS Yx3EkSvBItEw6A/QXicB =xfL6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/4df00371.8000...@toell.net
