Bug#832704: RFS: nixnote2/2.0~beta10+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- Open Source Evernote client

[Gianfranco Costamagna]

Hi


>See license.html.  The project is GPL-2, but some files have GPL-2+ in
>their headers.


rescheduled, thanks :)

and sorry for the useless question
G.

Bug#832704: RFS: nixnote2/2.0~beta10+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- Open Source Evernote client

[Sean Whitton]

Hello Gianfranco,

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 06:54:01PM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Hi, I put the package in deferred/5, because I'm not sure about the whole 
> license.
> Isn't it something like GPL-2+ instead of GPL-2?
> I agree single files are ok, but the "*" wildcard seems a GPL-2+ to me, even 
> if
> I didn't find a copying file.

See license.html.  The project is GPL-2, but some files have GPL-2+ in
their headers.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#832704: RFS: nixnote2/2.0~beta10+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- Open Source Evernote client

[Sean Whitton]

control: tag -1 -moreinfo +confirmed
control: noowner -1

I consider d648533e5f1d9942a07cb9e907eec2d58b1965fb ready for upload.

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 04:47:59PM +0800, Boyuan Yang wrote:
> A missing dependency libqt4-sql-sqlite caused this problem. It seems that
> the automatic dh_shlibdeps failed to list it inside Depends list (it only 
> listed libqt4-sql). A explicit dependency was added the latest commit.

Okay.  Perhaps dlopen() is used to access libqt4-sql-sqlite.

> > > * Copyright information update for beta10 version.
> > 
> > 3. Are you installing the plugins at present, 'hunspell' and 'webcam'?
> > Contents of package suggests not.  Upstream seems to think they belong
> > in separate binary packages.  What do you think about that?
> 
> Added debian/README.Debian file to explain the situation. The plugin structure
> won't support Qt5, plus upstream placed the plugin inside /usr/share, which 
> is 
> not acceptable. The building system (CMake) for plugins is not in standard 
> status, too. My choice is not to install the plugins and wait until upstream 
> provides with a better solution.
> 
> Patching may be possible but that would be painful.

Yes, this seems like an upstream problem.  I hope they can resolve it.

> > > Blhc on debomatic reported some missing CXXFLAGS (-fPIE). However
> > > since new gcc has already set -fPIE by default since 6.2.0-7, this
> > > should be harmless.
> > 
> > Yes.  Lintian would be complaining if it wasn't being passed.
> 
> Again this needs patching, so I would choose to look into it later until some 
> real problem comes up.

What needs patching?  If it was needed, Lintian would have emitted a warning.

> > 4. I'm curious why you nuked gbp.conf.  Entirely up to you, of
> > course.
> 
> I found git-buildpackage not reading the "debian/gbp.conf" at all unless I 
> list it explicitly inside environment variable, which is different from words 
> written in man 5 gbp.conf. Command line arguments should be a better choice 
> for me.

That's really weird.  I've never seen that.  You might want to report a bug.

> > 5. Your Forwarded: headers got eaten at some point.  Would be nice
> > to restore them.
> 
> Well it is a problem hiding in gbp pq, which will eat non-mandatory headers 
> when exporting patches because git commit does not preserve those 
> information. 
> Maybe I fill file a bug report (feature request?) later.

Already exists: #785274

A workaround is to put the Forwarded: headed at the end of the patch
description, above the '---' line.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#832704: RFS: nixnote2/2.0~beta10+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- Open Source Evernote client

[Boyuan Yang]

在 2016年11月13日星期日 CST 下午2:43:47，Sean Whitton 写道：
> plus some other minor comments below.  The blocker:
> 
> hephaestus ~ % nixnote2
> QSqlDatabase: QSQLITE driver not loaded
> QSqlDatabase: available drivers: QMYSQL3 QMYSQL
> ERROR 2016-11-13 14:38:58.946 ( sql/databaseconnection.cpp @ 44 ) Error
> opening database:  QSqlError(-1, "Driver not loaded", "Driver not loaded")
> 
> Any ideas?

A missing dependency libqt4-sql-sqlite caused this problem. It seems that
the automatic dh_shlibdeps failed to list it inside Depends list (it only 
listed libqt4-sql). A explicit dependency was added the latest commit.

> > * Some minor modification to package description in debian/control.
> 
> 1. There's a grammatical error in your change: s/provide/provides/.
> 
> 2. The sentence doesn't really make sense.  Maybe s/and/to/ is what you
> meant?

Fixed.

> > * Copyright information update for beta10 version.
> 
> 3. Are you installing the plugins at present, 'hunspell' and 'webcam'?
> Contents of package suggests not.  Upstream seems to think they belong
> in separate binary packages.  What do you think about that?

Added debian/README.Debian file to explain the situation. The plugin structure
won't support Qt5, plus upstream placed the plugin inside /usr/share, which is 
not acceptable. The building system (CMake) for plugins is not in standard 
status, too. My choice is not to install the plugins and wait until upstream 
provides with a better solution.

Patching may be possible but that would be painful.

> > Blhc on debomatic reported some missing CXXFLAGS (-fPIE). However
> > since new gcc has already set -fPIE by default since 6.2.0-7, this
> > should be harmless.
> 
> Yes.  Lintian would be complaining if it wasn't being passed.

Again this needs patching, so I would choose to look into it later until some 
real problem comes up.

> 4. I'm curious why you nuked gbp.conf.  Entirely up to you, of course.

I found git-buildpackage not reading the "debian/gbp.conf" at all unless I 
list it explicitly inside environment variable, which is different from words 
written in man 5 gbp.conf. Command line arguments should be a better choice 
for me.

> 5. Your Forwarded: headers got eaten at some point.  Would be nice to
> restore them.

Well it is a problem hiding in gbp pq, which will eat non-mandatory headers 
when exporting patches because git commit does not preserve those information. 
Maybe I fill file a bug report (feature request?) later.

> 6. You could install the new screenshot.png to
> /usr/share/doc/nixnote2/examples (see dh_installexamples(1)).

Done.


Git repository updated on
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/collab-maint/nixnote2.git
Package on debian-mentors updated:
https://mentors.debian.net/package/nixnote2
Package built on debomatic:
http://debomatic-amd64.debian.net/distribution#unstable/
nixnote2/2.0~beta10+dfsg-1/


Sincerely,
Boyuan Yang


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#832704: RFS: nixnote2/2.0~beta10+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- Open Source Evernote client

[Sean Whitton]

control: retitle 832704 RFS: nixnote2/2.0~beta10+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- Open Source 
Evernote client

Dear Boyuan,

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 11:26:52AM +0800, Boyuan Yang wrote:
> Since the dependency qevercloud has entered unstable, it is perfectly
> fine to move towards nixnote2. I have prepared the 2.0~beta10 version
> of nixnote2 package, which should address previous problems.

Thank you for your efforts.  There is only one issue blocking upload,
plus some other minor comments below.  The blocker:

hephaestus ~ % nixnote2
QSqlDatabase: QSQLITE driver not loaded
QSqlDatabase: available drivers: QMYSQL3 QMYSQL
ERROR 2016-11-13 14:38:58.946 ( sql/databaseconnection.cpp @ 44 ) Error 
opening database:  QSqlError(-1, "Driver not loaded", "Driver not loaded")

Any ideas?

> * Some minor modification to package description in debian/control.

1. There's a grammatical error in your change: s/provide/provides/.

2. The sentence doesn't really make sense.  Maybe s/and/to/ is what you
meant?

> * Copyright information update for beta10 version.

3. Are you installing the plugins at present, 'hunspell' and 'webcam'?
Contents of package suggests not.  Upstream seems to think they belong
in separate binary packages.  What do you think about that?

> Blhc on debomatic reported some missing CXXFLAGS (-fPIE). However
> since new gcc has already set -fPIE by default since 6.2.0-7, this
> should be harmless.

Yes.  Lintian would be complaining if it wasn't being passed.

4. I'm curious why you nuked gbp.conf.  Entirely up to you, of course.

5. Your Forwarded: headers got eaten at some point.  Would be nice to
restore them.

6. You could install the new screenshot.png to
/usr/share/doc/nixnote2/examples (see dh_installexamples(1)).

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#832704: RFS: nixnote2/2.0~beta10+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- Open Source Evernote client

[Boyuan Yang]

retitle 832704 RFS: nixnote2/2.0~beta10+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- Open Source
Evernote client
thanks

Hi Sean,

Since the dependency qevercloud has entered unstable, it is perfectly
fine to move towards nixnote2. I have prepared the 2.0~beta10 version
of nixnote2 package, which should address previous problems.

Detailed changes since 2.0~beta9+dfsg:

* Legacy code about old OpenOffice.org was further explained in README.source.
* Move packaging Git repository to collab-maint, now I have write
permission there. The old GitHub repository still exists and in an
up-to-date state.
* Some minor modification to package description in debian/control.
* Switched back to build with Qt4. This is not ideal but will help
squashing bugs raised when using Qt5. I will switch back to build
against Qt5 once upstream declared that the Qt5 version is in mature
state.
* Copyright information update for beta10 version.

Package on debian-mentors:

https://mentors.debian.net/package/nixnote2

Packaging repository can be found at

https://anonscm.debian.org/git/collab-maint/nixnote2.git

Deb-o-matic-amd64 build status:


http://debomatic-amd64.debian.net/debomatic/unstable/pool/nixnote2_2.0~beta10+dfsg-1/nixnote2_2.0~beta10+dfsg-1.dsc

Blhc on debomatic reported some missing CXXFLAGS (-fPIE). However
since new gcc has already set -fPIE by default since 6.2.0-7, this
should be harmless.

Looking forward to further review.


Sincerely,
Boyuan Yang

Bug#832704: RFS: nixnote2

[Sean Whitton]

Dear Boyuan,

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 07:25:22PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> I just reviewed the latest changes in your nixnote2 git repo, as part of
> confirming that nixnote2 works with the new qevercloud shlib.
> 
> I have the following remaining suggestions (none are "must fix"):

Are you waiting on qevercloud to make it through NEW to work on these?

I think it would be best to get nixnote2 into NEW sooner than that.  The
ftp-masters are probably planning to empty the queue before the soft
freeze, but there might not be enough time between the emptying of NEW
and the soft freeze to get nixnote in.  It would be a shame if
qevercloud went into stretch and nixnote2 didn't!

It's fine for packages that depend on other to be in NEW so long as the
dependency relationships are not complicated.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#832704: RFS: nixnote2

[Sean Whitton]

Hello Boyuan,

I just reviewed the latest changes in your nixnote2 git repo, as part of
confirming that nixnote2 works with the new qevercloud shlib.

I have the following remaining suggestions (none are "must fix"):

1. I suggested adding something to README.source explaining why the
package does not depend on openoffice, despite having some references to
openoffice dictionaries.  You have written:

Upstream code contains some legacy instructions, including the
attempt of calling components of old OpenOffice(in spellchecker.cpp)
and behaviors that do not follow RFC 6068, etc. Those code are
examined and considered harmless.

This doesn't really give the issue.  I think you should explain
"harmless".  Say explicitly that the function/code path never gets
executed.

2. nixnote2 is failing piuparts :(

Could not install nixnote2-dbgsym nixnote2.

I successfully installed nixnote2-dbgsym on my machine, so while it
would be good to diagnose what's going on with piuparts, I don't think
it should block an upload.

3. I saw a build of beta10 on deb-o-matic.  Are you planning to update
the git repo/mentors package, too, or do you not consider beta10 stable
enough yet?  Your decision.

4. Don't forget `dch -r` to update the timestamp!

Thanks.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#832704: RFS: nixnote2/2.0~beta8+20160727+ds-1 [ITP] -- Open Source Evernote client

[Paul Wise]

On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Sean Whitton wrote:

> I should be clear that what I had in mind was the question of *actually
> regenerating* the files during the build process, not just the question
> of including them in the source package with a promise that the
> regeneration will actually work -- which is of course required.  There
> are diverging opinions about running autoconf during the package build
> or not.

Thanks for the clarification. The ftp-master policy on this is that it
must be *possible* to build all generated files in Debian main from
source using only packages in Debian main, but *not* that it actually
be done during the normal build process.

Personally I feel that the only way to know if it was and still is
possible is to *actually* build from source during every single build,
including binNMUs and QA rebuilds. This way we find problems in our
toolchains earlier and can fix them. This also gives our users
confidence that they have the practical ability to modify all of
Debian and rebuild from source should the need arise. That practical
ability is also needed for various parts of Debian itself, including
new ports, security updates and so on.

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Bug#832704: RFS: nixnote2/2.0~beta8+20160727+ds-1 [ITP] -- Open Source Evernote client

[Sean Whitton]

Hello,

On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 09:41:06AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > From the links you've provided, it seems that the Evernote *.thrift
> > files ought to be packaged as a build-dependency which are then used to
> > generate the *.cpp files when the package is build.
> >
> > If it's impossible to regenerate them, arguably we wouldn't be shipping
> > the full source code to qevercloud.  Opinions in Debian diverge here,
> > though.  You might consider asking on debian-de...@lists.debian.org for
> > anyone else who has dealt with files generated from *.thrift files in
> > their packaging work.
> 
> The DFSG and ftp-master policy is fairly clear on this:
> 
> https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html
> https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines

I should be clear that what I had in mind was the question of *actually
regenerating* the files during the build process, not just the question
of including them in the source package with a promise that the
regeneration will actually work -- which is of course required.  There
are diverging opinions about running autoconf during the package build
or not.

> >> Issue sent (https://github.com/baumgarr/nixnote2/issues/201).
> >
> > As well as removing the theme files from the tarball using
> > "Files-Excluded:", you seem to have edited theme.ini.  It would be
> > better not to edit theme.ini in the tarball and instead use a quilt
> > patch, since it's a Debian-specific change.  The reason for this is that
> > it allows you to explain what's going on in a patch header, so others
> > can see why the purple theme was removed.
> 
> FYI, just because the images mention Inkscape, GIMP or other tools in
> their meta-data does not mean that there is non-PNG source for the
> images. Upstream could have prepared the image in that tool, not saved
> the SVG/XCF files, exported the PNG file and closed the program. There
> is no reason to remove the purple theme unless you have clear proof
> that upstream is withholding the source files.
> 
> That is completely separate to the license concern mentioned in the
> issue that you filed of course.

Right: the unclear authorship/license is the main problem right now.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#832704: RFS: nixnote2/2.0~beta8+20160727+ds-1 [ITP] -- Open Source Evernote client

[Paul Wise]

On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Sean Whitton wrote:

>> > ... generated cpp source files in qevercloud ...
>>
>> That is generated from Evernote Cloud API Thrift IDL files [1], an abstract
>> description of Evernote Cloud API, and generated files should be considered
>> as part of the source code. It is barely impossible and does not make sense
>> to regenerate those files.
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/evernote/evernote-thrift , some more stories in
>> https://blog.evernote.com/tech/2011/05/26/evernote-and-thrift/ .
>
> From the links you've provided, it seems that the Evernote *.thrift
> files ought to be packaged as a build-dependency which are then used to
> generate the *.cpp files when the package is build.
>
> If it's impossible to regenerate them, arguably we wouldn't be shipping
> the full source code to qevercloud.  Opinions in Debian diverge here,
> though.  You might consider asking on debian-de...@lists.debian.org for
> anyone else who has dealt with files generated from *.thrift files in
> their packaging work.

The DFSG and ftp-master policy is fairly clear on this:

https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html
https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines

>> > There's a further issue with at least some of the files in images/.
>> > The check-all-the-things tool reveals:
>> >
>> > # Check with upstream where the GIMP XCF source files are.
>> > $ find -type f \( -iname '*.png' -o -iname '*.gif' -o -iname '*.jpg' 
>> > -o -iname '*.jpeg' \) -exec grep -iF gimp {} +
>> > Binary file ./images/purple-theme/synchronize.png matches
>> >
>> > i.e. images/purple-theme/synchronize.png was probably created with the
>> > GIMP.  That means the preferred format for modifying this file is
>> > probably a *.svg file.  Similarly, the other files in the theme might
>> > have been prepared with a tool that works with *.svg files and exports
>> > to *.png.
>> >
>> > In order to satisfy DFSG (and indeed the GPL), the *.svg files need to
>> > be included in the source package.
>>
>> Upstream gives no response, and I am patching to move the entire purple
>> theme away from the source code for now.
>>
>> Issue sent (https://github.com/baumgarr/nixnote2/issues/201).
>
> As well as removing the theme files from the tarball using
> "Files-Excluded:", you seem to have edited theme.ini.  It would be
> better not to edit theme.ini in the tarball and instead use a quilt
> patch, since it's a Debian-specific change.  The reason for this is that
> it allows you to explain what's going on in a patch header, so others
> can see why the purple theme was removed.

FYI, just because the images mention Inkscape, GIMP or other tools in
their meta-data does not mean that there is non-PNG source for the
images. Upstream could have prepared the image in that tool, not saved
the SVG/XCF files, exported the PNG file and closed the program. There
is no reason to remove the purple theme unless you have clear proof
that upstream is withholding the source files.

That is completely separate to the license concern mentioned in the
issue that you filed of course.

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Bug#832704: RFS: nixnote2/2.0~beta8+20160727+ds-1 [ITP] -- Open Source Evernote client

[Sean Whitton]

Hello,

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 08:07:52PM +0800, Boyuan Yang wrote:
> 2016-08-25 5:41 GMT+08:00 Sean Whitton :
> > You claim that the upstream files are only licensed under the GPL
> > version 2 (and no later version).  But looking at the headers of the .h
> > and .cpp files, the upstream author licenses them as GPL-2+.  However,
> > EnCrypt.java is just GPL-2 with no later version.
> 
> Fixed in the copyright file.
> 
> Upstream said the entire project is released under GPL-2, but some certain 
> files
> are released under GPL-2+. So I am writing that "Files: *" is under GPL-2 and
> listed those files to be under GPL-2+.

Okay.  Optionally, you can wrap the lines to make them it more readable, e.g.

Files: application.h
 application.cpp
 global.cpp

And I think you could use e.g. global.* instead of listing both of them,
if you want to (definitely not required).

> Personally I have one question: Now that upstream said some files are
> released under GPL-2+, is it reasonable for the Debian package to
> choose only the GPL-2 license to republish?

That would meet the DFSG, but it wouldn't be serving our users'
interests: we'd be neglecting to inform them that they can re-use the
files under GPL-3 or later if they wanted to.

> > The copyright status of the images/ subdirectory is also unclear.
> 
> Besides the purple-theme directory (as stated below), I am willing to believe
> that those files are released under GPL-2 as stated by the Nixnote2 author.

Have you tried e-mailing the author?  I agree that it would be
reasonable to assume that they are GPL-2 if he doesn't reply.

> > The address of the FSF offices in screencapture.cpp is not correct.  It
> > would be best to patch it and submit that upstream.  Similarly
> > screencapture.h.
> 
> Patch sent to upstream as PR (https://github.com/baumgarr/nixnote2/pull/200).
> Not accepted yet, but I put it inside debian/patches for now.
> The patch will be removed after the PR is merged.

You should add a "Forwarded: https://github.com/baumgarr/nixnote2/pull/200;
patch header.

> > The copyright status of faderdialog.{cpp,h} needs looking at -- the
> > files claim they were taken from some web forum!
> 
> Good news: as stated in the forum rule http://www.qtcentre.org/rules/:
> 
> "Unless stated otherwise by the author all code published on this site is
> public domain and can be used by anyone for anything without any 
> affiliation
> to the original author."
> 
> No statement was found in the related post, so I have updated the copyright
> file as public-domain.

Great!  That was a lot easier than it might have been!

> > The qevercloud/ dir seems to be an embedded code copy of ...
> 
> OK. Here comes the tough part.
> 
> In short: Nixnote2 upstream said he/she is forking and maintaining the
> embedded code, qevercloud original upstream dead, no need to worry.
> 
> A slightly long story: https://github.com/baumgarr/nixnote2/issues/187
> 
> Someone is picking up and forking the project. The qevercloud library
> was not made into shared library before (in 2.x series). The new forker
> is releasing 3.x releases with shared library support. However, the author
> of Nixnote2 is not willing to use the forked codes now.
> 
> I made some investigations and find that the code for Nixnote2 needs
> slight modifications to use qevercloud 3.x. So far I have tried to pack
> libqevercloud* as debian package and some result can be found on
> GitHub (https://github.com/hosiet/qevercloud), but I am not going to
> file ITP/RFS until upstream agrees to adapt QEvercloud 3.x branch.

Thanks for the the explanation and the link to the GitHub thread.

The issue here is no longer about copyright or licensing: it's about the
fact that qevercloud should be packaged as a shared library.  The reason
for this is that it is clear qevercloud 3.x's author intends for
qevercloud to be a general-purpose library that different third-party
applications can link with.  If we were to upload nixnote with an
embedded copy, we wouldn't be making qevercloud's full potential
available to Debian users and other packagers.

You've worked really hard on nixnote's packaging and so I hope you don't
feel too disappointed about this delay -- I think that we can still get
both nixnote and qevercloud in before the stretch freeze.

I suggest that you work with the qevercloud author to get qevercloud
into Debian as a proper shared library.  It sounds like he's already
done most of the work.  And it sounds like the nixnote author would be
willing to make the necessary modifications once this has been done.

> > ... generated cpp source files in qevercloud ...
> 
> That is generated from Evernote Cloud API Thrift IDL files [1], an abstract
> description of Evernote Cloud API, and generated files should be considered
> as part of the source code. It is barely impossible and does not make sense
> to regenerate those files.
> 
> [1] https://github.com/evernote/evernote-thrift , 

Bug#832704: RFS: nixnote2/2.0~beta8+20160727+ds-1 [ITP] -- Open Source Evernote client

[Boyuan Yang]

Hello,

2016-08-25 5:41 GMT+08:00 Sean Whitton :
> You claim that the upstream files are only licensed under the GPL
> version 2 (and no later version).  But looking at the headers of the .h
> and .cpp files, the upstream author licenses them as GPL-2+.  However,
> EnCrypt.java is just GPL-2 with no later version.

Fixed in the copyright file.

Upstream said the entire project is released under GPL-2, but some certain files
are released under GPL-2+. So I am writing that "Files: *" is under GPL-2 and
listed those files to be under GPL-2+.

Personally I have one question: Now that upstream said some files are released
under GPL-2+, is it reasonable for the Debian package to choose only the
GPL-2 license to republish?

> The copyright status of the images/ subdirectory is also unclear.

Besides the purple-theme directory (as stated below), I am willing to believe
that those files are released under GPL-2 as stated by the Nixnote2 author.

> Although the Trolltech license passes DFSG, it is not correct to label
> it as "public domain" because they have claimed copyright on the file.
> Putting something in the public domain is to declaim copyright.  So I
> would call the license "custom1" or something.

Fixed as "custom1".

> The address of the FSF offices in screencapture.cpp is not correct.  It
> would be best to patch it and submit that upstream.  Similarly
> screencapture.h.

Patch sent to upstream as PR (https://github.com/baumgarr/nixnote2/pull/200).
Not accepted yet, but I put it inside debian/patches for now.
The patch will be removed after the PR is merged.

> The copyright status of faderdialog.{cpp,h} needs looking at -- the
> files claim they were taken from some web forum!

Good news: as stated in the forum rule http://www.qtcentre.org/rules/:

"Unless stated otherwise by the author all code published on this site is
public domain and can be used by anyone for anything without any affiliation
to the original author."

No statement was found in the related post, so I have updated the copyright
file as public-domain.

> The qevercloud/ dir seems to be an embedded code copy of ...

OK. Here comes the tough part.

In short: Nixnote2 upstream said he/she is forking and maintaining the
embedded code, qevercloud original upstream dead, no need to worry.

A slightly long story: https://github.com/baumgarr/nixnote2/issues/187

Someone is picking up and forking the project. The qevercloud library
was not made into shared library before (in 2.x series). The new forker
is releasing 3.x releases with shared library support. However, the author
of Nixnote2 is not willing to use the forked codes now.

I made some investigations and find that the code for Nixnote2 needs
slight modifications to use qevercloud 3.x. So far I have tried to pack
libqevercloud* as debian package and some result can be found on
GitHub (https://github.com/hosiet/qevercloud), but I am not going to
file ITP/RFS until upstream agrees to adapt QEvercloud 3.x branch.

> ... generated cpp source files in qevercloud ...

That is generated from Evernote Cloud API Thrift IDL files [1], an abstract
description of Evernote Cloud API, and generated files should be considered
as part of the source code. It is barely impossible and does not make sense
to regenerate those files.

[1] https://github.com/evernote/evernote-thrift , some more stories in
https://blog.evernote.com/tech/2011/05/26/evernote-and-thrift/ .

> There's a further issue with at least some of the files in images/.  The
> check-all-the-things tool reveals:
>
> # Check with upstream where the GIMP XCF source files are.
> $ find -type f \( -iname '*.png' -o -iname '*.gif' -o -iname '*.jpg' -o 
> -iname '*.jpeg' \) -exec grep -iF gimp {} +
> Binary file ./images/purple-theme/synchronize.png matches
>
> i.e. images/purple-theme/synchronize.png was probably created with the
> GIMP.  That means the preferred format for modifying this file is
> probably a *.svg file.  Similarly, the other files in the theme might
> have been prepared with a tool that works with *.svg files and exports
> to *.png.
>
> In order to satisfy DFSG (and indeed the GPL), the *.svg files need to
> be included in the source package.

Upstream gives no response, and I am patching to move the entire purple
theme away from the source code for now.

Issue sent (https://github.com/baumgarr/nixnote2/issues/201).

Patch added and will be kept or removed after the explanation on this
problem from upstream.

> I think you need to patch readme.txt to remove reference to installation
> instructions, since (rightly) you're not installing install.txt and
> Readme_Arch_Linux.txt.

Patch added.

Not sending patch to upstream, since it is merely a debian-package issue.

> Finally, it seems that spellchecker.cpp hardcodes paths to OpenOffice
> dictionaries in /opt.  They're not installed to /opt on Debian.  And
> maybe you need a dependency on libreoffice.

The software already has a 

Bug#832704: RFS: nixnote2/2.0~beta8+20160727+ds-1 [ITP] -- Open Source Evernote client

[Sean Whitton]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:41:11AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Sean Whitton wrote:
> 
> > i.e. images/purple-theme/synchronize.png was probably created with the
> > GIMP.  That means the preferred format for modifying this file is
> > probably a *.svg file.  Similarly, the other files in the theme might
> > have been prepared with a tool that works with *.svg files and exports
> > to *.png.
> 
> I think you mean *.xcf instead of *.svg here?

I did indeed, thanks!

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#832704: RFS: nixnote2/2.0~beta8+20160727+ds-1 [ITP] -- Open Source Evernote client

[Paul Wise]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Sean Whitton wrote:

> i.e. images/purple-theme/synchronize.png was probably created with the
> GIMP.  That means the preferred format for modifying this file is
> probably a *.svg file.  Similarly, the other files in the theme might
> have been prepared with a tool that works with *.svg files and exports
> to *.png.

I think you mean *.xcf instead of *.svg here?

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Bug#832704: RFS: nixnote2/2.0~beta8+20160727+ds-1 [ITP] -- Open Source Evernote client

[Sean Whitton]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 02:41:38PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> There's a further issue with at least some of the files in images/.  The
> check-all-the-things tool reveals:
> 
> # Check with upstream where the GIMP XCF source files are.
> $ find -type f \( -iname '*.png' -o -iname '*.gif' -o -iname '*.jpg' -o 
> -iname '*.jpeg' \) -exec grep -iF gimp {} +
> Binary file ./images/purple-theme/synchronize.png matches
> 
> i.e. images/purple-theme/synchronize.png was probably created with the
> GIMP.  That means the preferred format for modifying this file is
> probably a *.svg file.  Similarly, the other files in the theme might
> have been prepared with a tool that works with *.svg files and exports
> to *.png.
> 
> In order to satisfy DFSG (and indeed the GPL), the *.svg files need to
> be included in the source package.

Stuart Prescott pointed out to me that the way I wrote this is a bit
misleading.

I meant that you should confirm there is no *.svg source for the files
-- not that there is definitely a source you need to find.  If the files
were created and edited in *.png all along, that that is the preferred
format for modification.  The check-all-the-things output is only a
pointer to further investigation.

Also, if upstream can't help you track down the license of the files
created by Lexi Shriner, you could just drop that theme since there
exists the default theme.

Sorry for sending so many separate e-mails!  Hope we can get these
issues resolved soon.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#832704: RFS: nixnote2/2.0~beta8+20160727+ds-1 [ITP] -- Open Source Evernote client

[Sean Whitton]

Hello,

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 12:37:12PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > Hold on, are you looking at upstream copyright file?
> > That file is outdated and not used. Please check the file on Debian branch:
> > 
> > https://github.com/hosiet/nixnote2/blob/debian/debian/copyright
> 
> I was looking at the wrong file -- sorry for being sloppy and wasting
> your time.  Unfortunately, there are some problems with the one you've
> linked to.

There's a further issue with at least some of the files in images/.  The
check-all-the-things tool reveals:

# Check with upstream where the GIMP XCF source files are.
$ find -type f \( -iname '*.png' -o -iname '*.gif' -o -iname '*.jpg' -o 
-iname '*.jpeg' \) -exec grep -iF gimp {} +
Binary file ./images/purple-theme/synchronize.png matches

i.e. images/purple-theme/synchronize.png was probably created with the
GIMP.  That means the preferred format for modifying this file is
probably a *.svg file.  Similarly, the other files in the theme might
have been prepared with a tool that works with *.svg files and exports
to *.png.

In order to satisfy DFSG (and indeed the GPL), the *.svg files need to
be included in the source package.

I think you need to patch readme.txt to remove reference to installation
instructions, since (rightly) you're not installing install.txt and
Readme_Arch_Linux.txt.

Finally, it seems that spellchecker.cpp hardcodes paths to OpenOffice
dictionaries in /opt.  They're not installed to /opt on Debian.  And
maybe you need a dependency on libreoffice.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#832704: RFS: nixnote2/2.0~beta8+20160727+ds-1 [ITP] -- Open Source Evernote client

[Sean Whitton]

Hello,

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 03:57:36PM +0800, Boyuan Yang wrote:
> >> FYI, this software is debian-sourced because it used to contain some
> >> useless scripts (custom hacky scripts for deb / rpm / targz packaging)
> >> and a jar file (which is not acceptable in Java packaging). The
> >> ds-version merely delete those files.
> >
> > You can do this if it's convenient, but you don't need to -- it's only
> > non-DFSG-free files that have to be filtered out.  You can just not
> > install the .jar, which might be easier than making a +ds tarball
> > everytime upstream makes a new release.
> 
> That would be great. Personally since 2.0~beta9 < 2.0~beta9+ds,
> I would like to defer it to next upstream release.

That sounds fine.

> > The opencv patch has now disappeared.  Was that deliberate?
> 
> Yes. It was merged upstream.

Cool.

> >> > You're installing README.md but this file contains no useful
> >> > information.  The README.txt file looks more useful.  Does that
> >> > get installed to the help/ dir?  I couldn't tell without building
> >> > the package, sorry!
> >>
> >> I did not install README.txt, since this file mainly describes the 
> >> situation
> >> of source (not the binary). Should I install it anyway?
> >
> > I was thinking that the index of other documentation might be useful --
> > it explains the purpose of theme.ini. shortcut_howto.txt etc.
> > colors.txt is an example file so it should go into
> > /usr/share/doc/nixnote2/examples.
> 
> Sure. It is installed using dh_installexamples(1) now.

Good.

> > There are some problems with your copyright file:
> >
> > - You're using an outdated format, and the URI in Format-Specification:
> >   doesn't work.  Please check policy for the current format.
> >
> > - You need a "Files: *" paragraph, and "icons/*" doesn't need to be a
> >   separate paragraph.
> >
> > - You should add yourself to the copyright for debian/*.
> >
> > - There is a syntax error too :)  In the GPL-2+ paragraph.
> 
> Hold on, are you looking at upstream copyright file?
> That file is outdated and not used. Please check the file on Debian branch:
> 
> https://github.com/hosiet/nixnote2/blob/debian/debian/copyright

I was looking at the wrong file -- sorry for being sloppy and wasting
your time.  Unfortunately, there are some problems with the one you've
linked to.

You claim that the upstream files are only licensed under the GPL
version 2 (and no later version).  But looking at the headers of the .h
and .cpp files, the upstream author licenses them as GPL-2+.  However,
EnCrypt.java is just GPL-2 with no later version.

The copyright status of the images/ subdirectory is also unclear.  For
example, images/purple-theme/purpleThemeInfo.html says that they were
made by Lexi Shriner.  Perhaps confirm with upstream that they are GPL-2
(as license.html would suggest).

Although the Trolltech license passes DFSG, it is not correct to label
it as "public domain" because they have claimed copyright on the file.
Putting something in the public domain is to declaim copyright.  So I
would call the license "custom1" or something.

The address of the FSF offices in screencapture.cpp is not correct.  It
would be best to patch it and submit that upstream.  Similarly
screencapture.h.

The copyright status of faderdialog.{cpp,h} needs looking at -- the
files claim they were taken from some web forum!

The qevercloud/ dir seems to be an embedded code copy of
https://github.com/mgsxx/QEverCloud or one of its GitHub forks, since
that one claims to be inactive.  I think you need to package it
separately.  qevercloud/generated/* should probably be regenerated at
package build time.

> > Docs go in /usr/share/doc/nixnote2 not /usr/share/nixnote2 -- you're
> > installing several to the wrong place, but some to the right place.
> 
> Fixed. Now everything other than theme.ini and shortcuts.txt are installed
> as docs. The only two files are left because they are shipped as fixed config
> files.

Good.

> > The comments in your d/rules file are great.  Have you filed an
> > upstream bug about the broken `make install`?  You could provide
> > them with your d/install file to help.
> 
> Thanks, I will file the issue later. This is not of top priority.
> Previously upstream did not provide the `make install' target but to rely on
> `cp'. That target was added recently from a PR but the quality is poor.

Okay, good to know.  Agreed that it is low priority.

In summary -- the package is in great shape, and the only issues are the
copyright and licensing stuff above, plus packaging QEverCloud.  Great
work so far.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#832704: RFS: nixnote2/2.0~beta8+20160727+ds-1 [ITP] -- Open Source Evernote client

[Boyuan Yang]

Hello,

2016-08-24 11:56 GMT+08:00 Sean Whitton :
>> Since it is a debian-source (ds) package, I am not sure which original 
>> tarball
>> should be provided with pristine-tar. Anyway, I put both the ds-modified and
>> the original tarball with pristine-tar inside now. (Check the
>> pristine-tar branch.)
>
> I meant the tarball that you want to have uploaded to Debian.

Got it. :)

>> FYI, this software is debian-sourced because it used to contain some
>> useless scripts (custom hacky scripts for deb / rpm / targz packaging)
>> and a jar file (which is not acceptable in Java packaging). The
>> ds-version merely delete those files.
>
> You can do this if it's convenient, but you don't need to -- it's only
> non-DFSG-free files that have to be filtered out.  You can just not
> install the .jar, which might be easier than making a +ds tarball
> everytime upstream makes a new release.

That would be great. Personally since 2.0~beta9 < 2.0~beta9+ds,
I would like to defer it to next upstream release.

> Also, you could consider using .xz compression for the orig tarball to
> save space on the Debian mirror network.  You can set that in gbp.conf
> if you're using gbp to generate tarballs.

Fixed in d/watch, d/gbp.conf and pristine-tar branch.

> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 12:58:00PM +0800, Boyuan Yang wrote:
>> > Is the GitHub repo that this package is based on a fork of Nevernote?  I
>> > think you should change the Homepage: field to point at the GitHub
>> > repo.  Or are they controlled by the same person?
>>
>> They are controlled by the same person and actually they are the *same
>> project*. Actually the author is still using nevernote page on
>> Sourceforge to distribute pre-built nixnote2 packages.
>
> I filed https://github.com/baumgarr/nixnote2/issues/198

Great, I will track upstream response.

> The opencv patch has now disappeared.  Was that deliberate?

Yes. It was merged upstream.

>> > You're installing README.md but this file contains no useful
>> > information.  The README.txt file looks more useful.  Does that get
>> > installed to the help/ dir?  I couldn't tell without building the
>> > package, sorry!
>>
>> I did not install README.txt, since this file mainly describes the situation
>> of source (not the binary). Should I install it anyway?
>
> I was thinking that the index of other documentation might be useful --
> it explains the purpose of theme.ini. shortcut_howto.txt etc.
> colors.txt is an example file so it should go into
> /usr/share/doc/nixnote2/examples.

Sure. It is installed using dh_installexamples(1) now.

> There are some problems with your copyright file:
>
> - You're using an outdated format, and the URI in Format-Specification:
>   doesn't work.  Please check policy for the current format.
>
> - You need a "Files: *" paragraph, and "icons/*" doesn't need to be a
>   separate paragraph.
>
> - You should add yourself to the copyright for debian/*.
>
> - There is a syntax error too :)  In the GPL-2+ paragraph.

Hold on, are you looking at upstream copyright file?
That file is outdated and not used. Please check the file on Debian branch:

https://github.com/hosiet/nixnote2/blob/debian/debian/copyright

> - Looks like the manpage is copyright Vincent Cheng.

Fixed.

> Docs go in /usr/share/doc/nixnote2 not /usr/share/nixnote2 -- you're
> installing several to the wrong place, but some to the right place.

Fixed. Now everything other than theme.ini and shortcuts.txt are installed
as docs. The only two files are left because they are shipped as fixed config
files.

> The comments in your d/rules file are great.  Have you filed an upstream
> bug about the broken `make install`?  You could provide them with your
> d/install file to help.

Thanks, I will file the issue later. This is not of top priority.
Previously upstream did not provide the `make install' target but to rely on
`cp'. That target was added recently from a PR but the quality is poor.


I updated the GitHub repository and dsc package on mentors again.

Sincerely,
Boyuan Yang

Bug#832704: RFS: nixnote2/2.0~beta8+20160727+ds-1 [ITP] -- Open Source Evernote client

[Sean Whitton]

Hello,

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 09:09:31AM +0800, Boyuan Yang wrote:
> Thank you for your advice. I will not force-push commits from now on.

Cool, thanks :)

> > (I can obtain the tarball from mentors, but you might consider
> > adding it to your git repository using pristine-tar(1).)
> 
> Since it is a debian-source (ds) package, I am not sure which original tarball
> should be provided with pristine-tar. Anyway, I put both the ds-modified and
> the original tarball with pristine-tar inside now. (Check the
> pristine-tar branch.)

I meant the tarball that you want to have uploaded to Debian.

> FYI, this software is debian-sourced because it used to contain some
> useless scripts (custom hacky scripts for deb / rpm / targz packaging)
> and a jar file (which is not acceptable in Java packaging). The
> ds-version merely delete those files.

You can do this if it's convenient, but you don't need to -- it's only
non-DFSG-free files that have to be filtered out.  You can just not
install the .jar, which might be easier than making a +ds tarball
everytime upstream makes a new release.

Also, you could consider using .xz compression for the orig tarball to
save space on the Debian mirror network.  You can set that in gbp.conf
if you're using gbp to generate tarballs.

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 12:58:00PM +0800, Boyuan Yang wrote:
> > Is the GitHub repo that this package is based on a fork of Nevernote?  I
> > think you should change the Homepage: field to point at the GitHub
> > repo.  Or are they controlled by the same person?
>
> They are controlled by the same person and actually they are the *same
> project*. Actually the author is still using nevernote page on
> Sourceforge to distribute pre-built nixnote2 packages.

I filed https://github.com/baumgarr/nixnote2/issues/198

> > Your version number indicates that you are packaging a beta release.
> > Generally, only full upstream releases are uploaded to Debian
> > unstable, rather than testing releases/release candidates.  Is there
> > some good reason for using this version?
>
> Upstream is keeping "beta" string in version for several years and
> there is no sign that he/she will make a "non-beta" release in near
> future. However the function of nixnote2 is complete and everything
> works well now. Personally I think it is suitable for the release.

Okay.

> > The description of the "exclude opencv linking" doesn't explain why
> > opencv support is disabled "for now".  Please explain.
>
> In upstream trunk the opencv-related functions are disabled and
> removed. The developer intends to make it into a plugin, so I disabled
> related builds. What's more, I noticed that Debian is preparing
> opencv2-3 transition, so my personal preference is to pack the
> opencv-related plugin after the transition is completed.

The opencv patch has now disappeared.  Was that deliberate?

> > Vcs-* should point at your packaging repository, not the upstream
> > git repository.
>
> Yes. I am pointing to my packaging repository.

Sorry!

> > You're installing README.md but this file contains no useful
> > information.  The README.txt file looks more useful.  Does that get
> > installed to the help/ dir?  I couldn't tell without building the
> > package, sorry!
>
> I did not install README.txt, since this file mainly describes the situation
> of source (not the binary). Should I install it anyway?

I was thinking that the index of other documentation might be useful --
it explains the purpose of theme.ini. shortcut_howto.txt etc.
colors.txt is an example file so it should go into
/usr/share/doc/nixnote2/examples.

There are some problems with your copyright file:

- You're using an outdated format, and the URI in Format-Specification:
  doesn't work.  Please check policy for the current format.

- You need a "Files: *" paragraph, and "icons/*" doesn't need to be a
  separate paragraph.

- You should add yourself to the copyright for debian/*.

- There is a syntax error too :)  In the GPL-2+ paragraph.

- Looks like the manpage is copyright Vincent Cheng.

Docs go in /usr/share/doc/nixnote2 not /usr/share/nixnote2 -- you're
installing several to the wrong place, but some to the right place.

The comments in your d/rules file are great.  Have you filed an upstream
bug about the broken `make install`?  You could provide them with your
d/install file to help.

--
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#832704: RFS: nixnote2/2.0~beta8+20160727+ds-1 [ITP] -- Open Source Evernote client

[Boyuan Yang]

Control: tag -1 -moreinfo
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-ment...@lists.debian.org

2016-08-21 1:02 GMT+08:00 Sean Whitton :
> control: tag -1 +moreinfo
>
> Please don't edit published history -- I wanted to use `git diff` to
> check the changes you had made in response to my review, but now I have
> to just check the whole package from scratch.

Thank you for your advice. I will not force-push commits from now on.

> Could you confirm that https://github.com/hosiet/nixnote2 is the version
> that should be reviewed, please?

Yes. To be more concrete, commit d9e10186a9433a3ca57b8c75427e1926b0164fbc
on branch "debian" is the current debian packaging branch. Commit
b2d66576bb2b9a3c33fa7cc6af69f703082b54d8 on branch master is the
ds-modified upstream source code, and "upstream" branch is the original
upstream release.

> (I can obtain the tarball from mentors, but you might consider adding it
> to your git repository using pristine-tar(1).)

Since it is a debian-source (ds) package, I am not sure which original tarball
should be provided with pristine-tar. Anyway, I put both the ds-modified and
the original tarball with pristine-tar inside now. (Check the
pristine-tar branch.)

FYI, this software is debian-sourced because it used to contain some useless
scripts (custom hacky scripts for deb / rpm / targz packaging) and a jar file
(which is not acceptable in Java packaging). The ds-version merely delete
those files.

The newly-packaged nixnote2 version 2.0~beta9+ds has been pushed onto
https://mentors.debian.net/package/nixnote2 and GitHub, in which the only
change is to enable pristine-tar support.

Thanks and I am still looking forward to further review and sponsorship.

--
Regards,
Boyuan Yang

Bug#832704: RFS: nixnote2/2.0~beta8+20160727+ds-1 [ITP] -- Open Source Evernote client

[Sean Whitton]

control: tag -1 +moreinfo

Hello,

It seems that you force-pushed your GitHub repo that you mentioned in an
earlier e-mail.  I tried to use `git pull` to get your latest work, but
that failed.

Please don't edit published history -- I wanted to use `git diff` to
check the changes you had made in response to my review, but now I have
to just check the whole package from scratch.

Could you confirm that https://github.com/hosiet/nixnote2 is the version
that should be reviewed, please?

(I can obtain the tarball from mentors, but you might consider adding it
to your git repository using pristine-tar(1).)

Thanks.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#832704: RFS: nixnote2/2.0~beta9+ds-1 [ITP] -- Open Source Evernote client

[Boyuan Yang]

Control: reopen -1
Control: tag -1 -moreinfo
X-Debbugs-CC: locutusofb...@debian.org
X-Debbugs-CC: spwhit...@spwhitton.name
X-Debbugs-CC: a...@debian.org

Hello all,

Sorry for the accidentally removal of nixnote2 from
mentors.debian.net. Upstream tagged the new version days ago and I was
trying to upload the latest version. The final version should be on
mentors now.

I believe the package is suitable for another review again. The java
part of the package was reviewed by Markus on debian-java already [1]
and other problems raised by Sean was fixed too.

You may obtain the source package from mentors.debian.net for dsc file
[2] and ds-suffixed source tarball [3].

Looking forward to further review and sponsorship.

[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-java/2016/08/msg00038.html
[2] 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/n/nixnote2/nixnote2_2.0~beta9+ds-1.dsc
[3] 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/n/nixnote2/nixnote2_2.0~beta9+ds.orig.tar.gz

--
Sincerely,
Boyuan Yang

Bug#832704: RFS: nixnote2/2.0~beta8+20160727+ds-1 [ITP] -- Open Source Evernote client

[Boyuan Yang]

> I can't sponsor the upload, but I hope the following review is useful to
> you.

Thank you very much for your detailed review. I would like to explain
those problems here for you and anyone who might be interested:

> Since I am not familiar with Java packaging, it would be advisable to
> ask on the Debian java packaging group mailing list for someone to
> review those parts of the package.

OK,  I will take a try.

> Must-fixes
> --
>
> Is the GitHub repo that this package is based on a fork of Nevernote?  I
> think you should change the Homepage: field to point at the GitHub
> repo.  Or are they controlled by the same person?

They are controlled by the same person and actually they are the *same
project*. Actually the author is still using nevernote page on
Sourceforge to distribute pre-built nixnote2 packages.

> Your version number indicates that you are packaging a beta release.
> Generally, only full upstream releases are uploaded to Debian unstable,
> rather than testing releases/release candidates.  Is there some good
> reason for using this version?

Upstream is keeping "beta" string in version for several years and
there is no sign that he/she will make a "non-beta" release in near
future. However the function of nixnote2 is complete and everything
works well now. Personally I think it is suitable for the release.

> The description of the "exclude opencv linking" doesn't explain why
> opencv support is disabled "for now".  Please explain.

In upstream trunk the opencv-related functions are disabled and
removed. The developer intends to make it into a plugin, so I disabled
related builds. What's more, I noticed that Debian is preparing
opencv2-3 transition, so my personal preference is to pack the
opencv-related plugin after the transition is completed.

> Vcs-* should point at your packaging repository, not the upstream git
> repository.

Yes. I am pointing to my packaging repository.

> You should remove the "ignore-branch" and "builder" settings from
> gbp.conf.  Those should only be set in ~/.gbp.conf or /etc/gbp.conf.

Thanks. I will fix it later.

> I can't try building and installing this package because I can't get a
> correct orig tarball.  The version on mentors seems to be out-of-date,
> and the version the watch file downloads conflicts with your
>  repo (which is what I'm looking
> at).  How can I get the correct orig tarball?

Really sorry I did not try to build from mentors. I will look into it
afterwards.

> Suggested improvements
> --
>
> There are a lot of build-dependencies.  It would be nice to run
> `wrap-and-sort -abst`.

Sure I will fix it.

> README.Debian is meant for users, but what you have written in there is
> only really relevant to Debian contributors.  Perhaps rename it to
> README.source, or just remove it.  You could also cite the relevant
> section of policy (and the version of policy in which the section had
> that number).

Thanks, I will try.

> The watch file looks like it will only work for the current version,
> because the repack suffix contains a part of the current version
> string.  Could it be made more general?

Sure. Will be fixed after next upstream release.

> Could you explain why you Recommends: mimetex and Suggests: cups?

Mimetex is used for latex support of evernote notes, as described by the author.
Cups is needed for note printing, but it is totally fine not to
install it if the user do not need to print.

> You're installing README.md but this file contains no useful
> information.  The README.txt file looks more useful.  Does that get
> installed to the help/ dir?  I couldn't tell without building the
> package, sorry!

I did not install README.txt, since this file mainly describes the situation
of source (not the binary). Should I install it anyway?

> I'm not sure you need to override dh_installchangelogs.  It usually
> detects filenames like 'changelog.txt'.  But I might be wrong.
>
> At debhelper compat 9, I think that you could remove a lot of lines from
> your rules file.  For example, you probably don't need these lines:
>
> DPKG_EXPORT_BUILDFLAGS = 1
> include /usr/share/dpkg/default.mk
> include /usr/share/dpkg/buildflags.mk

Thanks for these advices, I will try it out.

Bug#832704: RFS: nixnote2/2.0~beta8+20160727+ds-1 [ITP] -- Open Source Evernote client

[Sean Whitton]

control: tag -1 +moreinfo
control: owner -1 !

Hello,

Thanks for packaging this.  Org-mode >> Evernote but enabling people to
use the latter on Debian might be a useful gateway drug ... and a lot of
people say that Org-mode is the gateway drug for Emacs proper ;)

I can't sponsor the upload, but I hope the following review is useful to
you.  I've split it into two sections: things that I would consider
must-fixes before an upload to Debian, and suggested improvements.  The
latter aren't strictly necessary, but they would help demonstrate to a
potential sponsor that you are committed to maintaining this package in
Debian.

Since I am not familiar with Java packaging, it would be advisable to
ask on the Debian java packaging group mailing list for someone to
review those parts of the package.

Must-fixes
--

Is the GitHub repo that this package is based on a fork of Nevernote?  I
think you should change the Homepage: field to point at the GitHub
repo.  Or are they controlled by the same person?

Your version number indicates that you are packaging a beta release.
Generally, only full upstream releases are uploaded to Debian unstable,
rather than testing releases/release candidates.  Is there some good
reason for using this version?

The description of the "exclude opencv linking" doesn't explain why
opencv support is disabled "for now".  Please explain.

Vcs-* should point at your packaging repository, not the upstream git
repository.

You should remove the "ignore-branch" and "builder" settings from
gbp.conf.  Those should only be set in ~/.gbp.conf or /etc/gbp.conf.

I can't try building and installing this package because I can't get a
correct orig tarball.  The version on mentors seems to be out-of-date,
and the version the watch file downloads conflicts with your
 repo (which is what I'm looking
at).  How can I get the correct orig tarball?

Suggested improvements
--

There are a lot of build-dependencies.  It would be nice to run
`wrap-and-sort -abst`.

README.Debian is meant for users, but what you have written in there is
only really relevant to Debian contributors.  Perhaps rename it to
README.source, or just remove it.  You could also cite the relevant
section of policy (and the version of policy in which the section had
that number).

The watch file looks like it will only work for the current version,
because the repack suffix contains a part of the current version
string.  Could it be made more general?

Could you explain why you Recommends: mimetex and Suggests: cups?

You're installing README.md but this file contains no useful
information.  The README.txt file looks more useful.  Does that get
installed to the help/ dir?  I couldn't tell without building the
package, sorry!

I'm not sure you need to override dh_installchangelogs.  It usually
detects filenames like 'changelog.txt'.  But I might be wrong.

At debhelper compat 9, I think that you could remove a lot of lines from
your rules file.  For example, you probably don't need these lines:

DPKG_EXPORT_BUILDFLAGS = 1
include /usr/share/dpkg/default.mk
include /usr/share/dpkg/buildflags.mk

Since I couldn't actually build the package, that's all for now!

--
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#832704: RFS: nixnote2/2.0~beta8+20160727+ds-1 [ITP] -- Open Source Evernote client

[Boyuan Yang]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist

Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "nixnote2"

* Package name: nixnote2
  Version : 2.0~beta8+20160727+ds-1
  Upstream Author : Randy Baumgarte 
* URL : http://nevernote.sourceforge.net/
* License : GPL-2
  Section : utils

It builds those binary packages:

nixnote2 - Open Source Evernote client

To access further information about this package, please visit the following
URL:

https://mentors.debian.net/package/nixnote2

Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:

dget -x
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/n/nixnote2/nixnote2_2.0~beta8+20160727+ds-1.dsc

Alternatively, one can access package debian/ directory via git from URL:

https://github.com/hosiet/nixnote2.git

Regards,
Boyuan Yang