Re: RFS: phing (Another try...)
Hi Alessio, I will check it theses days and let you know when I think it's ready. Thanks in advance Nicolas Le 11 janvier 2012 00:37, Alessio Treglia ales...@debian.org a écrit : Hi Nicolas, On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Nicolas nikro...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Arno, many thanks for you report. I will update my packaging for theses cosmetics changes as you said ! I'd have interest in having this package in Debian, please let me know when the package is ready for the review. Cheers! -- Alessio Treglia | www.alessiotreglia.com Debian Developer | ales...@debian.org Ubuntu Core Developer| quadris...@ubuntu.com 0416 0004 A827 6E40 BB98 90FB E8A4 8AE5 311D 765A
Re: RFS: phing (Another try...)
Hi Nicolas, On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Nicolas nikro...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Arno, many thanks for you report. I will update my packaging for theses cosmetics changes as you said ! I'd have interest in having this package in Debian, please let me know when the package is ready for the review. Cheers! -- Alessio Treglia | www.alessiotreglia.com Debian Developer | ales...@debian.org Ubuntu Core Developer | quadris...@ubuntu.com 0416 0004 A827 6E40 BB98 90FB E8A4 8AE5 311D 765A -- 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/camhuwoxuktwsxq0uw_3rxskaz9fejrgng4-p75kanvzfoyc...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: phing (Another try...)
Hi Arno, many thanks for you report. I will update my packaging for theses cosmetics changes as you said ! Regards, Nicolas 2011/7/21 Arno Töll deb...@toell.net -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Nicolas, IANADD (twb told me, I shall be lazy!), here are some comments on your package: On 21.07.2011 09:13, Nicolas wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package phing. * Please extend description of the -doc package. Its a bit too short. You don't need to be too verbose, but please expand it by a few words. For example you could tell what exactly the package contains and what its purpose is. Compare with other -doc packages in Debian to get an idea * Your copyright looks pretty good, however Copyright: 2001,2002 THYRELL is probably a bit to few of information. Maybe add a contact address, I noticed in the code is listed one. Same for 2003, seasonfive. Yes, this is pure pedantry - feel free to ignore this. * There is a new upstream release. Please consider packaging it. Besides, the checksums of your orig.tar.gz don't not match with upstream's package, being it the full package or the PEAR one. Please don't touch it. $ sha1sum phing-2.4.5.tgz.1 bf4c5e709c9141555c299e02aab8ac80cddd2cf7 phing-2.4.5.tgz.1 (this is PEAR) $ sha1sum phing-2.4.5.tgz f3e2eb295317b79a9e4223c193430a2896883967 phing-2.4.5.tgz $ sha1sum phing_2.4.5.orig.tar.gz 367c6a92bee3d3c73c6b36c9afa35a122c1eb11c phing_2.4.5.orig.tar.gz * What's /usr/share/php/phing/etc for? Those files don't look like something which should be put in a etc-directory. I'm fine if you keep it that way in /usr/share/php/phing/etc, I'm just trying to find out, whether those files are meant to be touched at all. If so, they shouldn't reside in /usr. * In debian/rules, please remove unneeded comments dh-make produced. * Please generate your manpage during build. It seems to me, you ship it pre-compiled from the SGML man page you wrote. * Similar case for the API docs you package straight from the tarball. The DFSG mandate that a software package is available from source and its processing must be self-containing (e.g. compare with the preferred form for modification from the GPL license). For the generated API docs this means, there must be a way to regenerate those docs by means the main archive provides. You don't necessarily need to do this when producing the binary package, but please add at least a README.source file, where you document how to regenerate those API docs, upstream ships, if desired. * Your upstream tarball contains regression tests. Consider running them during build. Good work. Those are almost all cosmetic changes. - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOKFdFAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtNsoQAMUK3PphZGXhVNczYPMDMffG DGlZdGJWkfpowsir6mVZiLMBVMxUsFTmgGuBZtWs2C90bPugPadLXLccs6AjT44f /8Y8nIqDvT2kCwW2O/Izh7QxwnnxNn6X1ryFQlphsJd7uPe6rGX4hHAs8xxEOFCL 06iJCIipq1yH2h7LhoaryFUh5Xng1fTSyzK7R8axEESPW7OUSiS94yrIEQA6d/Ki 4NzYkZjgLiFOqlX5rqa/k6tFs2qwoLVePc1bcwmbJB0ErC32sgnMC7u/gIEZn/g1 t8A11dw4BHwOWwHX8IqkjuIKC7IibSvVuPIIzg+GYRJcoXrgY/Vww6xwIFaK3wPS frhgxRSh8QSFNnHLixEIuZ1YyvunDpMhN6o33oPLaMWvWsoQAvNH2vHUEXIQIxTZ kzddqn0Y5XuuwjpXqIMJFytzL6nYMRSkJyRZrb5n1csgyNK99gi/Gczsm099YTAD ihHXtv9Cwgn3JYXfNdtchkJaLhRuh7ExdzmbR7/VsJ2/5HEpjVtuZK3Fpc8psckP UNRQDbFRUYNWhSuC5brnte++HbV+ZTInkOLi9Jb5lRr5/fdxVigfEK4ph1xV6rh4 me5/OYg6LxgXxlePYfsYXll0KaHTMWEuahzf5k1DQMnH3GFk6NSbpq2hYBt6DQHY P39Ag9vBdig83Y4DSoh+ =KAoz -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/4e285745.2050...@toell.net
Re: RFS: phing (Another try...)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Nicolas, IANADD (twb told me, I shall be lazy!), here are some comments on your package: On 21.07.2011 09:13, Nicolas wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package phing. * Please extend description of the -doc package. Its a bit too short. You don't need to be too verbose, but please expand it by a few words. For example you could tell what exactly the package contains and what its purpose is. Compare with other -doc packages in Debian to get an idea * Your copyright looks pretty good, however Copyright: 2001,2002 THYRELL is probably a bit to few of information. Maybe add a contact address, I noticed in the code is listed one. Same for 2003, seasonfive. Yes, this is pure pedantry - feel free to ignore this. * There is a new upstream release. Please consider packaging it. Besides, the checksums of your orig.tar.gz don't not match with upstream's package, being it the full package or the PEAR one. Please don't touch it. $ sha1sum phing-2.4.5.tgz.1 bf4c5e709c9141555c299e02aab8ac80cddd2cf7 phing-2.4.5.tgz.1 (this is PEAR) $ sha1sum phing-2.4.5.tgz f3e2eb295317b79a9e4223c193430a2896883967 phing-2.4.5.tgz $ sha1sum phing_2.4.5.orig.tar.gz 367c6a92bee3d3c73c6b36c9afa35a122c1eb11c phing_2.4.5.orig.tar.gz * What's /usr/share/php/phing/etc for? Those files don't look like something which should be put in a etc-directory. I'm fine if you keep it that way in /usr/share/php/phing/etc, I'm just trying to find out, whether those files are meant to be touched at all. If so, they shouldn't reside in /usr. * In debian/rules, please remove unneeded comments dh-make produced. * Please generate your manpage during build. It seems to me, you ship it pre-compiled from the SGML man page you wrote. * Similar case for the API docs you package straight from the tarball. The DFSG mandate that a software package is available from source and its processing must be self-containing (e.g. compare with the preferred form for modification from the GPL license). For the generated API docs this means, there must be a way to regenerate those docs by means the main archive provides. You don't necessarily need to do this when producing the binary package, but please add at least a README.source file, where you document how to regenerate those API docs, upstream ships, if desired. * Your upstream tarball contains regression tests. Consider running them during build. Good work. Those are almost all cosmetic changes. - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOKFdFAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtNsoQAMUK3PphZGXhVNczYPMDMffG DGlZdGJWkfpowsir6mVZiLMBVMxUsFTmgGuBZtWs2C90bPugPadLXLccs6AjT44f /8Y8nIqDvT2kCwW2O/Izh7QxwnnxNn6X1ryFQlphsJd7uPe6rGX4hHAs8xxEOFCL 06iJCIipq1yH2h7LhoaryFUh5Xng1fTSyzK7R8axEESPW7OUSiS94yrIEQA6d/Ki 4NzYkZjgLiFOqlX5rqa/k6tFs2qwoLVePc1bcwmbJB0ErC32sgnMC7u/gIEZn/g1 t8A11dw4BHwOWwHX8IqkjuIKC7IibSvVuPIIzg+GYRJcoXrgY/Vww6xwIFaK3wPS frhgxRSh8QSFNnHLixEIuZ1YyvunDpMhN6o33oPLaMWvWsoQAvNH2vHUEXIQIxTZ kzddqn0Y5XuuwjpXqIMJFytzL6nYMRSkJyRZrb5n1csgyNK99gi/Gczsm099YTAD ihHXtv9Cwgn3JYXfNdtchkJaLhRuh7ExdzmbR7/VsJ2/5HEpjVtuZK3Fpc8psckP UNRQDbFRUYNWhSuC5brnte++HbV+ZTInkOLi9Jb5lRr5/fdxVigfEK4ph1xV6rh4 me5/OYg6LxgXxlePYfsYXll0KaHTMWEuahzf5k1DQMnH3GFk6NSbpq2hYBt6DQHY P39Ag9vBdig83Y4DSoh+ =KAoz -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/4e285745.2050...@toell.net
Re: RFS: phing (Another try)
Hi all, thanks Benoît. I updated the package following your advices. I uploaded it on mentors and push my changes on the git repository. I allways search for a sponsor. Regards, Nicolas Le 2 juillet 2011 00:20, Benoît Knecht benoit.kne...@fsfe.org a écrit : Hi Nicolas, Nicolas wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package phing. * Package name: phing Version : 2.4.5-1 Upstream Author : Hans Lellelid h...@xmpl.org * URL : http://phing.info/ * License : LGPG-3 Section : devel It builds these binary packages: phing - PHP based build tool Two quick comments: - I don't think you should be shipping debian/gbp.conf. - Your man page advises users to report bugs to some email address; I think you should let them follow their distribution's recommendation (in Debian, report bugs to the Debian BTS and let the maintainer decide if they should be forwarded upstream). - (Okay three comments actually.) Your debian/copyright file doesn't use a versioned Format URL; in the latest version of DEP-5, the Name and Maintainer fields do not exist. The first Copyright and License should not be in their own paragraphs. Cheers, -- Benoît Knecht -- 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/20110701222040.gb11...@marvin.lan
Re: RFS: phing (Another try)
Hi Nicolas, Nicolas wrote: Hi all, thanks Benoît. I updated the package following your advices. I uploaded it on mentors and push my changes on the git repository. There are still a few things that need to be fixed: - debian/phing.1 still contains the BUGS section I mentioned previously. - Your debian/copyright file is still not DEP-5 compliant. To repeat what I said before, it doesn't use a versioned Format URL; in the latest version of DEP-5, the Name and Maintainer fields do not exist. Instead of repeating the LGPL-3 twice, you should put it in a stand-alone license paragraph. All rights reserved is not a license. I've checked the fist two files you list under that license, they seem to be LGPL. Don't include @copyright in the Copyright field. You need a stand-alone license paragraph for the Apache and Expat licenses. Cheers, -- Benoît Knecht -- 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/20110702083322.ga13...@marvin.lan
Re: RFS: phing (Another try)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Benoît, On 02.07.2011 10:33, Benoît Knecht wrote: - debian/phing.1 still contains the BUGS section I mentioned previously. that's not necessarily a problem. You, apparently a FSFE member could just take a look into coreutils manpages. See, for instance, cp(1) which includes a very similar section: REPORTING BUGS Report cp bugs to bug-coreut...@gnu.org GNU coreutils home page: http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/ General help using GNU software: http://www.gnu.org/gethelp/ Report cp translation bugs to http://translationproject.org/team/ Finally I'm not aware of any Debian suggestion to change manpages to point users to report bugs to Debian instead of upstream. It is true, Debian users can - and are encouraged - to report problems to the BTS, but this is definitively not a requirement. A fair compromise, since the manpage has been written by Nicolas anyway, could be to mention both, e.g. similar to strace(1): PROBLEMS Problems with strace should be reported via the Debian Bug Tracking System, or to the strace mailing list at strace-devel@lists.source‐forge.net. - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJODubHAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtuZsQAMHV72qxogKBIITJL4fRgwK7 OyvCub1Upg+d2gocoNLKTYAWFDpbo00v6isQxwfVEcmz+OoJRmGYJp7Bd8nh9q2w WKqpY8/UcSteW3h/ypaNewu/ZzAKop17FyNeZUibqYHtizsYhVHJZNEDcu8QxNwk UloISj3q3TYZO0TCwiK9vFpnn1QUgplvJqyExAKYssa9JdCmu6Z6tCsCBMq8V6UQ btMaP8KzNEVIH/e+y1UjKobE6O1VtIJKV1XKr2eQLOpAhDjafJ6Ib4+r3w03P6yt hBnUdLEKHNsa5NLtu3Q9mslxx9/A+uUc9AV6k1MDzbj2l5/IcE1/5Ev+yMb6OfpC 9QyKVVnjoAgQOdVjXxlO7I/oAolhXRP6nl9wckjSoLViT+jB4g+C6C8SCz576Vcz 7wpO79SQ68WIL0Aj/XJapV5b1Yua9TaRf1D31AyBlxIDZ+tzazHF7N6tzTkTvZke nc5c84smN7ZG8iUvMBS54m32w8yQJfaXvyL3ikilN8o2y/BCeCCQDB+Cy1/qVkWO zZnFGpYhNPJZQ3VuXycs/zFTHITlgL/2xXNAMbCxWaUBcK5hw8fVG2y7zixb4akD fWoIBvFvFIHQZ0RsqrMrrWKC+RgTO3g/sv5WRcbpBqasfKIBXAUQXNPfhISnSqkN 5purOVxo1f1qJ7NSo7kt =B1uY -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/4e0ee6c7.8000...@toell.net
Re: RFS: phing (Another try)
Hi, - debian/phing.1 still contains the BUGS section I mentioned previously. I used Arno advice and add twice reporting system, debian on and upstream one. - Your debian/copyright file is still not DEP-5 compliant. To repeat what I said before, it doesn't use a versioned Format URL; in the latest version of DEP-5, the Name and Maintainer fields do not exist. I forgot to remove Name. Do you think I must add a revision to the format specification ? Instead of repeating the LGPL-3 twice, you should put it in a stand-alone license paragraph. The copyright is not the same so I repeated twice. All rights reserved is not a license. I've checked the fist two files you list under that license, they seem to be LGPL. Don't include @copyright in the Copyright field. O I remove! You need a stand-alone license paragraph for the Apache and Expat licenses. Same as LGPL, the copyright is not the same. Regards, Nicolas
Re: RFS: phing (Another try)
Hi Arno, Arno Töll wrote: On 02.07.2011 10:33, Benoît Knecht wrote: - debian/phing.1 still contains the BUGS section I mentioned previously. that's not necessarily a problem. You, apparently a FSFE member could just take a look into coreutils manpages. See, for instance, cp(1) which includes a very similar section: REPORTING BUGS Report cp bugs to bug-coreut...@gnu.org GNU coreutils home page: http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/ General help using GNU software: http://www.gnu.org/gethelp/ Report cp translation bugs to http://translationproject.org/team/ Finally I'm not aware of any Debian suggestion to change manpages to point users to report bugs to Debian instead of upstream. It is true, Debian users can - and are encouraged - to report problems to the BTS, but this is definitively not a requirement. If it was upstream's man page, of course I wouldn't suggest modifying it in that way. But since it was written by the packager, and at least for now will mainly be installed on Debian, I think it makes sense not to advise users to bypass Debian's BTS. -- Benoît Knecht -- 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/20110702095225.gb13...@marvin.lan
Re: RFS: phing (Another try)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Benoît, On 02.07.2011 11:52, Benoît Knecht wrote: If it was upstream's man page, of course I wouldn't suggest modifying it in that way. But since it was written by the packager, and at least for now will mainly be installed on Debian, I think it makes sense not to advise users to bypass Debian's BTS. Sure but I'd definitively suggest to send improvements back to upstream. This includes man pages. - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJODur+AAoJEMcrUe6dgPNt0kUQAJppL+sbNvtcWc/vcmbL7+An 5vSMUZq2M0v7l2JZARvhnsEUU66jQYBlafAuwTkeZ+EpNlc/8cfMFd7mc4gYMESw t73Ae5ti+5ZkofybupKg58fi+spEljIKRyB3DjTYrPkEyp/s83axkk6sgkxxq2eX de4HgFmaUsp+WL+l9PMpoSrLSxGVqukUsL2xiqogQLVqjX5loYCvTBLwmUupUb2m bMYXY2sElXO9afw/eROADv01C0KMuO8XAMhHtEYzO4E3ZIePL3JxwQKYbtAqc5dL eX3DS3aNVeSsXSzJ7MHumr25yxlgYui4xefIJ8G52oa3iB5155Z26ht0W91FL6vQ phe8jCBGc970ADKgKCpJAHVFJQD4IM0MYW+BUN+6vc5Yk/GDRONn3rggb9iF0Ani qQ0fzOru3ZlacpQubmisLMELZLXlN4BbtNi2UF5v5d5Bj5BMwAmxgo+geZsJx4WK xa3d8VZs+XVmqdl800Plb0hkMoSb5qkD37k7hB4uOjTNiDA+KS1gOxH5IsFd0tC5 6sjjEn27RcRasjByWRzaGV7hjJlqRoCZiL6poZ2qqTkdN+UXNufhkTp842HQpIFr rzbgBlT16z+KL2h9Z+bgKxGKlksaGwvqJedNzM4DsH2SEDKj6+INZRccA115Q9PT IFAf6msunNO2cCHC00UT =U/lo -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/4e0eeaff.1050...@toell.net
Re: RFS: phing (Another try)
Nicolas wrote: - debian/phing.1 still contains the BUGS section I mentioned previously. I used Arno advice and add twice reporting system, debian on and upstream one. - Your debian/copyright file is still not DEP-5 compliant. To repeat what I said before, it doesn't use a versioned Format URL; in the latest version of DEP-5, the Name and Maintainer fields do not exist. I forgot to remove Name. Do you think I must add a revision to the format specification ? Yes you should use a versioned URL. The current one is [1]. [1] http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?view=markuppathrev=174 Instead of repeating the LGPL-3 twice, you should put it in a stand-alone license paragraph. The copyright is not the same so I repeated twice. The copyright is different, but the license is the same. I'm not saying you shouldn't have two separate Files paragraphs, I'm just saying that each of these paragraphs should have a one-line License field, and then at the end of the document, you should have a stand-alone License paragraph for the LGPL-3. All rights reserved is not a license. I've checked the fist two files you list under that license, they seem to be LGPL. Don't include @copyright in the Copyright field. O I remove! You need a stand-alone license paragraph for the Apache and Expat licenses. Same as LGPL, the copyright is not the same. Again, you must include the text of the license in a stand-alone License paragraph. Cheers, -- Benoît Knecht -- 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/20110702100203.gc13...@marvin.lan
Re: RFS: phing (Another try)
Benoit, On Sat, Jul 02, 2011 at 12:02:03PM +0200, Benoît Knecht wrote: Nicolas wrote: Same as LGPL, the copyright is not the same. Again, you must include the text of the license in a stand-alone License paragraph. actually you may be interested in the base-files package having /usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-3 which would make a reference to that file sufficient IMHO. -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: phing (Another try)
Arno Töll wrote: On 02.07.2011 11:52, Benoît Knecht wrote: If it was upstream's man page, of course I wouldn't suggest modifying it in that way. But since it was written by the packager, and at least for now will mainly be installed on Debian, I think it makes sense not to advise users to bypass Debian's BTS. Sure but I'd definitively suggest to send improvements back to upstream. This includes man pages. Yes I agree, and that's actually why I suggested to remove the section entirely instead of pointing to Debian's BTS. Upstream can of course add a BUGS section if they want to, but I think it's more general and portable from distribution to distribution if there isn't one. -- Benoît Knecht -- 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/20110702102252.gd13...@marvin.lan
Re: RFS: phing (Another try)
Hi Kilian, Kilian Krause wrote: On Sat, Jul 02, 2011 at 12:02:03PM +0200, Benoît Knecht wrote: Nicolas wrote: Same as LGPL, the copyright is not the same. Again, you must include the text of the license in a stand-alone License paragraph. actually you may be interested in the base-files package having /usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-3 which would make a reference to that file sufficient IMHO. I was referring to the Apache and Expat licenses, that do not have a stand-alone License section at all, in violation of DEP-5. You're absolutely right about referring to the common-licenses files instead of including the full text of the license, but a stand-alone License paragraph is still required in that case. Cheers, -- Benoît Knecht -- 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/20110702102826.ge13...@marvin.lan
Re: RFS: phing (Another try)
Hi all, I think and I hope that time it's ok : - I add description for expat and apache license - I add a special stanza and only one for LGPL-3 license - I remove email for bug. All changes push to mentors and git repository. Regards, Nicolas Le 2 juillet 2011 12:28, Benoît Knecht benoit.kne...@fsfe.org a écrit : Hi Kilian, Kilian Krause wrote: On Sat, Jul 02, 2011 at 12:02:03PM +0200, Benoît Knecht wrote: Nicolas wrote: Same as LGPL, the copyright is not the same. Again, you must include the text of the license in a stand-alone License paragraph. actually you may be interested in the base-files package having /usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-3 which would make a reference to that file sufficient IMHO. I was referring to the Apache and Expat licenses, that do not have a stand-alone License section at all, in violation of DEP-5. You're absolutely right about referring to the common-licenses files instead of including the full text of the license, but a stand-alone License paragraph is still required in that case. Cheers, -- Benoît Knecht -- 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/20110702102826.ge13...@marvin.lan
Re: RFS: phing (Another try)
Nicolas wrote: I think and I hope that time it's ok : - I add description for expat and apache license That's much better. I don't think you should have Copyright (c) 1998, 1999, 2000 Thai Open Source Software Center Ltd in the Expat license text though, that would belong to the 'Copyright:' field. Also, I could not find the file that is supposed to be Expat-licensed (classes/phing/tasks/ext/JsMin.php). - I add a special stanza and only one for LGPL-3 license Great that the license text is not repeated more than once, but I think you should not have removed the entire paragraph with the classes/phing/parser/ files; as you said, they have the same license but a different copyright (2001,2002 THYRELL). - I remove email for bug. I'm happy with that change, but maybe Arno disagrees ;) Cheers, -- Benoît Knecht -- 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/20110702121035.gf13...@marvin.lan
Re: RFS: phing (Another try)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Benoît, On 02.07.2011 14:10, Benoît Knecht wrote: - I remove email for bug. I'm happy with that change, but maybe Arno disagrees ;) I'm fine with that. I was just disagreeing with you, denoting upstream's preferred way to report bugs should be replaced by Debian's BTS. Not to mention it at all, is the solomonic solution but fine as well. :) - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJODwz5AAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtXCAQAK3VjSqwg752d8l4K8fOLOq9 OcpKBHZgrvDoO5l12VouzCRFgy2t5V1ZKDn+jcOrpddE6CnUP7BgfnwKEhiBcGGe Zqacijgq0EypJbpQxQqsmbquwANwIfUmP2t3OJqXjr37eBCmoAcdgBYi75RGsJBh Sm6IWLSxcDyo4u165PY/2pr5Mf0p0JqbsbFQlVuGDuYHywWjqhmL3CatZSIvnjkR 5WrjbeWd9Bfp74ahxCZm0kWmmn0vyLRPUyMcaf5gqbPMGAbE8hSz91qOJGMnkR6k 3zkW2zy0ly2PIYm7yqkavmPyRJvlsIwXoXJWnGAF5VwPaQmYue1yFFGo/G/hZkvh EfSHlqGjYb5o11THB2GYldcHiHxM+8/5bq51/Xzh8Z0FgPMqeCzdRHRcGJVMFkml 1Ozq+rQL2gowmSZgu3d3/xIuW8eaZMYMcC+bdfk003BUUphhpkt4Gt8wvTslKd0f 0vxTjxEwWJhxKgWjZ1cKR8nwEiVeNo5WWEEfHjAu/cGCKGfttnBy/yY/4Xp4m0xX wRjBkNin6rurIYi0f9MQJF+ERfti+5pSHKvrJ21FRptjon+DbOqbSpsJNROc3mDu BDQdbfjXjdZEG1454QuJvI8zVvsgjlX6c6pYGkORHzs6R3k8bjj1VpcDEn3xzR7I wRCyxLA6OoE4OF3JRnBD =n6P4 -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/4e0f0cfa.9040...@toell.net
Re: RFS: phing (Another try)
Hi, Le 2 juillet 2011 14:10, Benoît Knecht benoit.kne...@fsfe.org a écrit : Nicolas wrote: I think and I hope that time it's ok : - I add description for expat and apache license That's much better. I don't think you should have Copyright (c) 1998, 1999, 2000 Thai Open Source Software Center Ltd in the Expat license text though, that would belong to the 'Copyright:' field. Also, I could not find the file that is supposed to be Expat-licensed (classes/phing/tasks/ext/JsMin.php). I agree and I removed the line. I forgot a subdirectory. It must read classes/phing/tasks/ext/jsmin/JsMin.php - I add a special stanza and only one for LGPL-3 license Great that the license text is not repeated more than once, but I think you should not have removed the entire paragraph with the classes/phing/parser/ files; as you said, they have the same license but a different copyright (2001,2002 THYRELL). - I remove email for bug. I'm happy with that change, but maybe Arno disagrees ;) Thanks again for your help Arno and you. I think it's ready for sponsor. I just have to find one. Regards, Nicolas
Re: RFS: phing (Another try)
Hi Nicolas, (BTW, please don't CC me, I'm subscribed to the list.) Nicolas wrote: [...] I think it's ready for sponsor. I just have to find one. It's in much better shape, yes. Thanks for taking our remarks in consideration. Another thing though; I just noticed that out of the 18MB of the unpacked .deb, 15MB are documentation. I would say it's definitely worth having a separate phing-doc package in this case. Speaking of documentation, some files in installed in usr/share/doc/phing probably shouldn't be. For example, phing_guide/langs/ only contains placeholders for non-existing translations, and I can't see the use of installing phing_guide/build.xml.gz. Cheers, -- Benoît Knecht -- 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/20110702132137.gg13...@marvin.lan
Re: RFS: phing (Another try)
Hi, Le 2 juillet 2011 15:21, Benoît Knecht benoit.kne...@fsfe.org a écrit : It's in much better shape, yes. Thanks for taking our remarks in consideration. I think, even if I made packages for more than one year, I a kind of newbie and any advices are helpful. I like improve my knowledge. Another thing though; I just noticed that out of the 18MB of the unpacked .deb, 15MB are documentation. I would say it's definitely worth having a separate phing-doc package in this case. Speaking of documentation, some files in installed in usr/share/doc/phing probably shouldn't be. For example, phing_guide/langs/ only contains placeholders for non-existing translations, and I can't see the use of installing phing_guide/build.xml.gz. Good idea. Regards, Nicolas
Re: RFS: phing (Another try)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On 02.07.2011 17:54, Nicolas wrote: Another thing though; I just noticed that out of the 18MB of the unpacked .deb, 15MB are documentation. I would say it's definitely worth having a separate phing-doc package in this case. [..] Good idea. I didn't have a deep look into your package. However now, Benoît mentioned the huge docs for your package, you also have to notice that Debian requires the 'main' repository to be self-containing. This is what the Debian social contract mandates. Having a brief look in your upstream's doc/ directory I noticed, you ship both, generated API docs and a PDF file, perhaps even more stuff like that. You have to make sure both resources can be regenerated (or changed, regarding the PDF file) during packaging with build dependencies available in Debian. This means for you, you should provide a target in your rules file, which regenerates this documentation the way, they are created upstream. While it is not required to rebuild them anytime (or at least, this is what most people seem to agree) you must provide the possibility to do so if desired. Otherwise you would have to cleanup your package from non-free stuff or move it contrib/non-free depending on licenses and requirements. - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOD0UiAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtp+MP/RRmqNxOxUYXCecx0+a+b+84 a/Bauqy5Aya4lmhwaZ50N/qJwFvGJmJF19y4qBRNtne5MpORilWNCtqdRu+h8E/b VIhja3gijPN3b4ceP6WMuWs4q0eO1hi+aJiBKlhUDwZM4fRgtS92Qx5kRdpMZvhr xjUBMGA7VPBZFlUq4F90+9MR7jqlaYvkzb+mkWYo3/YhNTYuc8EyjHiDDG54SCD0 Affh+NPtIxNYwZdN4hFdJNVudjVijE+KIf6cT0GGW9iA993aNE9PVzG67zH5ejWc tk3okqGPxivYJa2HjswJVLUf5wfpfFtQZOvuleNccjLoaxJ4DbgfADEtmXT/8eXi XPu6U+Qu8qvsW3M9h80XxVHcNhqZ19SNHBl5vMb6vHCDrutS6MJiyW6ZIgZh+A54 R2ZOWhnkYDcVvForOshInGVeH5RQafAYB5yHcxFjakN2DE7xhg6iCS9QbwhuylS/ fQzeRVpiAslfXMpdUO3JtmqLqFeTrV69P5cgug2u1h+U3N5LxWh7MRJPJ0eTNVva 2Of1QpdUaiZgqsbUUya/WaND5NiIeyUL09S7Kaj0UmDG7nrkaV/ykSnvhCeFBq/G O9QFsCLYUAGhM9Bhdh7qDJwcr7QxntZGObANndwV4B4MllHGVbfo1UbcOPUsnPei cufHr+0K+F9kHPQA2m7p =riw6 -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/4e0f4523.8030...@toell.net
Re: RFS: phing (Another try)
Hi all, I splitted the package and created a phing-doc package that hold the documentation. Regards, Nicolas 2011/7/2 Arno Töll deb...@toell.net -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On 02.07.2011 17:54, Nicolas wrote: Another thing though; I just noticed that out of the 18MB of the unpacked .deb, 15MB are documentation. I would say it's definitely worth having a separate phing-doc package in this case. [..] Good idea. I didn't have a deep look into your package. However now, Benoît mentioned the huge docs for your package, you also have to notice that Debian requires the 'main' repository to be self-containing. This is what the Debian social contract mandates. Having a brief look in your upstream's doc/ directory I noticed, you ship both, generated API docs and a PDF file, perhaps even more stuff like that. You have to make sure both resources can be regenerated (or changed, regarding the PDF file) during packaging with build dependencies available in Debian. This means for you, you should provide a target in your rules file, which regenerates this documentation the way, they are created upstream. While it is not required to rebuild them anytime (or at least, this is what most people seem to agree) you must provide the possibility to do so if desired. Otherwise you would have to cleanup your package from non-free stuff or move it contrib/non-free depending on licenses and requirements. - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOD0UiAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtp+MP/RRmqNxOxUYXCecx0+a+b+84 a/Bauqy5Aya4lmhwaZ50N/qJwFvGJmJF19y4qBRNtne5MpORilWNCtqdRu+h8E/b VIhja3gijPN3b4ceP6WMuWs4q0eO1hi+aJiBKlhUDwZM4fRgtS92Qx5kRdpMZvhr xjUBMGA7VPBZFlUq4F90+9MR7jqlaYvkzb+mkWYo3/YhNTYuc8EyjHiDDG54SCD0 Affh+NPtIxNYwZdN4hFdJNVudjVijE+KIf6cT0GGW9iA993aNE9PVzG67zH5ejWc tk3okqGPxivYJa2HjswJVLUf5wfpfFtQZOvuleNccjLoaxJ4DbgfADEtmXT/8eXi XPu6U+Qu8qvsW3M9h80XxVHcNhqZ19SNHBl5vMb6vHCDrutS6MJiyW6ZIgZh+A54 R2ZOWhnkYDcVvForOshInGVeH5RQafAYB5yHcxFjakN2DE7xhg6iCS9QbwhuylS/ fQzeRVpiAslfXMpdUO3JtmqLqFeTrV69P5cgug2u1h+U3N5LxWh7MRJPJ0eTNVva 2Of1QpdUaiZgqsbUUya/WaND5NiIeyUL09S7Kaj0UmDG7nrkaV/ykSnvhCeFBq/G O9QFsCLYUAGhM9Bhdh7qDJwcr7QxntZGObANndwV4B4MllHGVbfo1UbcOPUsnPei cufHr+0K+F9kHPQA2m7p =riw6 -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/4e0f4523.8030...@toell.net
Re: RFS: phing (Another try)
Le Sat, Jul 02, 2011 at 12:28:26PM +0200, Benoît Knecht a écrit : Kilian Krause wrote: On Sat, Jul 02, 2011 at 12:02:03PM +0200, Benoît Knecht wrote: Nicolas wrote: Same as LGPL, the copyright is not the same. Again, you must include the text of the license in a stand-alone License paragraph. actually you may be interested in the base-files package having /usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-3 which would make a reference to that file sufficient IMHO. I was referring to the Apache and Expat licenses, that do not have a stand-alone License section at all, in violation of DEP-5. You're absolutely right about referring to the common-licenses files instead of including the full text of the license, but a stand-alone License paragraph is still required in that case. Hello everybody, By the way, there is an excellent DEP 5 parser and validator packaged in Debian. I recommend to read the following article. http://ddumont.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/debian-copyright-dep5-parsereditorvalidatormigrator-is-released/ Have a nice Sunday, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- 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/20110703022915.gc3...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: RFS: phing (Another try)
Hi Nicolas, Nicolas wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package phing. * Package name: phing Version : 2.4.5-1 Upstream Author : Hans Lellelid h...@xmpl.org * URL : http://phing.info/ * License : LGPG-3 Section : devel It builds these binary packages: phing - PHP based build tool Two quick comments: - I don't think you should be shipping debian/gbp.conf. - Your man page advises users to report bugs to some email address; I think you should let them follow their distribution's recommendation (in Debian, report bugs to the Debian BTS and let the maintainer decide if they should be forwarded upstream). - (Okay three comments actually.) Your debian/copyright file doesn't use a versioned Format URL; in the latest version of DEP-5, the Name and Maintainer fields do not exist. The first Copyright and License should not be in their own paragraphs. Cheers, -- Benoît Knecht -- 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/20110701222040.gb11...@marvin.lan
Re: RFS: phing (another try)
Hi Nicolas, here are my comments about your work (i'm not a DD): -debian/control: since you specify '3.0 (quilt)' in debian/source/fomat, there is no need for a quilt dependency -debian/copyright: -Executing from the sources directory: $ grep -r copyright . you get, among others: ./classes/phing/parser/AbstractHandler.php: * @copyright 2001,2002 THYRELL. All rights reserved ./classes/phing/tasks/ext/jsmin/JsMin.php: * @copyright 2002 Douglas Crockford doug...@crockford.com (jsmin.c) ./classes/phing/tasks/ext/jsmin/JsMin.php: * @copyright 2008 Ryan Grove r...@wonko.com (PHP port) ./classes/phing/filters/TailFilter.php: * @copyright 2003 seasonfive. All rights reserved All the copyright holders must be included in the copyright file. You could also try executing 'grep -r apache .' -You could specify the copyright notice of the packaging itself (set by you for your work) -debian/rules: as above, you should remove all quilt-related commands, the simplest rules file should work in this case -lintian reports duplicated files in /usr/share/doc/phing, you should check it (i've noticed it running 'lintian -iIEvXcF --pedantic phing_2.4.5-1_i386.changes') Thanks, Federico -- 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/4e0c3b3e.5060...@gmail.com
Re: RFS: phing (another try)
Hi, I'm not DD. I'm sorrry. This my fast review about your package: 1. debhelper is 7. Bump to 8 under: debia/compat , debian/control 2. Bump Standards-Version to 3.9.2 3. no necessary quilt as build-dependency[0] 4. under debian/copyright specify license version, LGPL-3 (i.e) 5. for your patch, use DEP-3 format [1] cleaning #'s 6. clean the coments from debian/rules, uhm... seems it could be just (please try it): dh $@ [0] http://wiki.debian.org/Projects/DebSrc3.0#Does_a_3.0_.28quilt.29_source_package_need_to_build-depend_on_quilt.3F [1] http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/ Regards, -- Elías Alejandro -- 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/20110629170300.GB2308@debianero
Re: RFS: phing (another try)
Hi, thanks I will fix that soon. Regards, Nicolas 2011/6/29 Elías Alejandro eal...@gmail.com Hi, I'm not DD. I'm sorrry. This my fast review about your package: 1. debhelper is 7. Bump to 8 under: debia/compat , debian/control 2. Bump Standards-Version to 3.9.2 3. no necessary quilt as build-dependency[0] 4. under debian/copyright specify license version, LGPL-3 (i.e) 5. for your patch, use DEP-3 format [1] cleaning #'s 6. clean the coments from debian/rules, uhm... seems it could be just (please try it): dh $@ [0] http://wiki.debian.org/Projects/DebSrc3.0#Does_a_3.0_.28quilt.29_source_package_need_to_build-depend_on_quilt.3F [1] http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/ Regards, -- Elías Alejandro -- 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/20110629170300.GB2308@debianero
