RFS: free42
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package free42. * Package name: free42 Version : 1.4.66-1 Upstream Author : Thomas Okken * URL : http://thomasokken.com/free42/ * License : GPL2 Section : misc It builds these binary packages: free42 - HP42S Emulator The package appears to be lintian clean. My motivation for maintaining this package is: This software maintained by its author and really usefull, and it's a free implementation. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/free42 - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/free42/free42_1.4.66-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Jean Schurger -- Jean Schurger http://schurger.org GPG: http://schurger.org/jean.asc signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: free42
* Jean Schurger j...@schurger.org [110106 15:40]:
I am looking for a sponsor for my package free42.
Looking at debian/changelog, that is not quite helpful:
| free42 (1.4.66-1) unstable; urgency=low
|
| * Upstream release
| * Closes: #606358
|
| -- Jean Schurger j...@schurger.org Wed, 08 Dec 2010 12:38:31 -0500
The Closes has no reference to anything (so one could guess that it is the ITP
that is closed). And what is Upstream release as changelog for the very first
version supposed to tell me?
Next debian/control:
| Source: free42
| Section: misc
| Priority: optional
| Homepage: http://thomasokken.com/free42/
| Maintainer: Jean Schurger j...@schurger.org
| Build-Depends: debhelper (= 7.0.50), libxmu-dev, libgtk2.0-dev (= 2.10.3)
| Standards-Version: 3.9.1
|
| Package: free42
| Architecture: any
| Depends: ${misc:Depends}, ${shlibs:Depends}, debconf | debconf-2.0
| Description: HP42S Emulator
| Free42 is a re-implementation of the HP-42S calculator and the HP-82240
| printer. It is a complete rewrite, and doesn't use any HP code.
| You do not need an HP-42S ROM image in order to use it,
| yet it is fully HP-42S compatible.
| .
There is no need for an empty line at the end, so you can remove it
(the one with the dot).
I guess section otherosfs would be better than misc, as most other emulators
are there.
The It is a complete rewrite, and doesn't use any HP code. is a bit strange
to be in a description. (If it is not free software, it does not belong into
Debian. If it is free software, the copyright holder is not that important).
Why is this thing written without - in the short and with - in the long
description? I also think calculator could be added to the short description
and the long description be a bit more verbose what this thing is it emulates
might be helpfull.
Your debian/copyright file only lists
Thomas Okken and you, but as simple grep -i -r copyright . already gives:
Copyright _ 2005, Apple Computer, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright 2005 D. Jeff Dionne
Copyright (C) 1997 Rick Huebner
Copyright (C) 1993 by Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright (C) 1997 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Copyright (c) 1998 John D. Polstra.
Copyright (c) 2004-2005 Greg Parker. All rights reserved.
Copyright (c) 2001 David E. O'Brien
Copyright (c) 2005-2009 voidware ltd.
Copyright Base2 Corporation 2009
Copyright (C) 1997 Rick Huebner
Some of which seems to even be compiled and explicitly have BSD like licenses
requiring to include their copyright statement (which your binary packages do
not).
I've not looked at the actual packaging or the build process.
Bernhard R. Link
--
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/20110106152254.ga16...@pcpool00.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de
Re: RFS: free42
Hi, On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:35:14AM -0500, Jean Schurger wrote: Le mardi 21 décembre 2010 à 11:25 +0100, Etienne Millon a écrit : On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 09:49:31AM -0500, Jean Schurger wrote: I would like to simplify the debian/rules using (dh $@) but i think i don't understand clearly what is mean. Upstream sources does not use autotools. Is (dh $@) still applicable ? I think i'm missing something. Yes, it can be applied. The idea is for example that the install target will do default actions (call make install, build temporary directories, compress files, build deb…) except when you override a part. Moreover, certain parts follow a certain template : create empty directories, move files, etc. So they can be moved out of the Makefile, in package.dirs, package.install files, and so on. The mailing list does not seem to allow attachments, so I sent you a patch set that does exactly that. I factored your debian/rules to do the minimum in it, and use debhelper for the rest (it might be possible to reduce it further with dh --sourcedirectory=gtk but I am not sure). I kept the patches separate so that you can follow the process. Oh, and I moved doc/free42/README.gtk to doc/free42/README as this is the general purpose readme file for this package. You meant gtk/README to usr/share/doc/free42/README while not installing README ? Oh nice, Thanks for thoses explanations. Now i see much better what yo mean. (I've already seen package sources with install and dirs files, without really knowing why it was working). I'm surprised to see manpages links are done properly on gziped files without telling. (I've added a little line on the debian/copyright to notice you help :p) I've updated the package on http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/free42/free42_1.4.66-1.dsc What I downloaded had some issues. Your package contains: debian/patches/debian-changes-1.4.66-1 This may be due to non -clean source tree you used to build package. I think you should have removed ChangeLog file after you created it for some reason when playing with the source. I did not understand why debian/gtk/Makefile was there after you start using quilt. As for debian/rules, I wonder why you make override for dh_clean and dh_install. Aren't they meant for dh_auto_* targets? Something like: - #!/usr/bin/make -f %: dh $@ override_dh_auto_build: cd gtk make cd gtk make BCD_MATH=1 override_dh_auto_clean: cd gtk make cleaner rm -f gtk/free42.xpm override_dh_auto_install: cp gtk/icon.xpm gtk/free42.xpm override_dh_installchangelogs: dh_installchangelogs HISTORY At least, these fix some irregularities I see. (These are not tested though ...) See more on my explanation at: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/ch-dreq.en.html#s-defaultrules As for --sourcedirectory thing, I see it explained in debhelper(7) under BUILD SYSTEM OPTIONS. I never packaged this kind of package but looks like what you need is: - #!/usr/bin/make -f %: dh $@ override_dh_auto_build: dh_auto_build --sourcedirectory=gtk dh_auto_build --sourcedirectory=gtk -- BCD_MATH=1 override_dh_auto_clean: rm -f gtk/free42.xpm dh_auto_clean --sourcedirectory=gtk -- cleaner override_dh_auto_install: cp gtk/icon.xpm gtk/free42.xpm override_dh_installchangelogs: dh_installchangelogs HISTORY As for debian/patches/0_less-libs.diff file, you should use DEP-3 format http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/ As for copyright file, you should use DEP-5 format http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ I do not have time now to check and test these ... so I may have some wrong comments ... Osamu -- 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/20101224154831.ga12...@debian.org
Re: RFS: free42
Le samedi 25 décembre 2010 à 00:48 +0900, Osamu Aoki a écrit : Hi, Oh, and I moved doc/free42/README.gtk to doc/free42/README as this is the general purpose readme file for this package. You meant gtk/README to usr/share/doc/free42/README while not installing README ? Exactly what he meant. At least, these fix some irregularities I see. (These are not tested though ...) See more on my explanation at: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/ch-dreq.en.html#s-defaultrules As for --sourcedirectory thing, I see it explained in debhelper(7) under BUILD SYSTEM OPTIONS. I'm testing that. As for debian/patches/0_less-libs.diff file, you should use DEP-3 format http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/ Ok, i fix that. As for copyright file, you should use DEP-5 format http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ I have a two question about that: - Can you point me to an example of a package already using that, it will help me a lot. - Is there a way to validate the file, i mean, check that it's ok for computer usage ? Jean. -- Jean Schurger http://schurger.org GPG: http://schurger.org/jean.asc signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: free42
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 09:49:31AM -0500, Jean Schurger wrote: I would like to simplify the debian/rules using (dh $@) but i think i don't understand clearly what is mean. Upstream sources does not use autotools. Is (dh $@) still applicable ? I think i'm missing something. Yes, it can be applied. The idea is for example that the install target will do default actions (call make install, build temporary directories, compress files, build deb…) except when you override a part. Moreover, certain parts follow a certain template : create empty directories, move files, etc. So they can be moved out of the Makefile, in package.dirs, package.install files, and so on. The mailing list does not seem to allow attachments, so I sent you a patch set that does exactly that. I factored your debian/rules to do the minimum in it, and use debhelper for the rest (it might be possible to reduce it further with dh --sourcedirectory=gtk but I am not sure). I kept the patches separate so that you can follow the process. Oh, and I moved doc/free42/README.gtk to doc/free42/README as this is the general purpose readme file for this package. Cheers, -- Etienne Millon signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: free42
Le mardi 21 décembre 2010 à 11:25 +0100, Etienne Millon a écrit : On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 09:49:31AM -0500, Jean Schurger wrote: I would like to simplify the debian/rules using (dh $@) but i think i don't understand clearly what is mean. Upstream sources does not use autotools. Is (dh $@) still applicable ? I think i'm missing something. Yes, it can be applied. The idea is for example that the install target will do default actions (call make install, build temporary directories, compress files, build deb…) except when you override a part. Moreover, certain parts follow a certain template : create empty directories, move files, etc. So they can be moved out of the Makefile, in package.dirs, package.install files, and so on. The mailing list does not seem to allow attachments, so I sent you a patch set that does exactly that. I factored your debian/rules to do the minimum in it, and use debhelper for the rest (it might be possible to reduce it further with dh --sourcedirectory=gtk but I am not sure). I kept the patches separate so that you can follow the process. Oh, and I moved doc/free42/README.gtk to doc/free42/README as this is the general purpose readme file for this package. Oh nice, Thanks for thoses explanations. Now i see much better what yo mean. (I've already seen package sources with install and dirs files, without really knowing why it was working). I'm surprised to see manpages links are done properly on gziped files without telling. (I've added a little line on the debian/copyright to notice you help :p) I've updated the package on http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/free42/free42_1.4.66-1.dsc Can you uploaded it to debian ? Jean. -- Jean Schurger http://schurger.org GPG: http://schurger.org/jean.asc signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: free42
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:35:14AM -0500, Jean Schurger wrote: Oh nice, Thanks for thoses explanations. Now i see much better what yo mean. (I've already seen package sources with install and dirs files, without really knowing why it was working). You're welcome. I actually learnt from this, too. I'm surprised to see manpages links are done properly on gziped files without telling. It's done in the free42.links file (interpreted by dh_link, called by dh install). Can you uploaded it to debian ? Sorry, I am not a Debian Developer si I can't sponsor you. However your package seems good to me. I may miss something, though. Now you just have to be patient until a DD reviews your package and decides that it is suitable for inclusion in Debian. Note that we're in deep freeze and the priority is to fix release-critical bugs. But after Squeeze is released (ie when it's ready) it will probably be possible. Cheers, -- Etienne Millon signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: free42
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 10:44:15AM -0500, Jean Schurger wrote: Hi, i've updated the packages, can you have a look ? http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/free42/free42_1.4.66-1.dsc Jean. Hello, It seems good to me. It builds in a clean chroot, and is lintian clean upto -E. debian/rules can probably be simplified with compat level 7 (dh $@) but works as is. Minor nitpicks : - The quote from upstream in debian/copyright should probably be wrapped. - In your manpage, I don't think that you have to put that much whitespace (see attached patch). Cheers, -- Etienne Millon diff -Nru a/debian/free42bin.1 b/debian/free42bin.1 --- a/debian/free42bin.1 2010-12-15 17:14:53.0 +0100 +++ b/debian/free42bin.1 2010-12-20 13:03:00.0 +0100 @@ -6,7 +6,6 @@ .RB [ \-skin .I SKIN ] - .SH DESCRIPTION Free42 is a complete re-implementation of the HP-42S scientific programmable RPN calculator. @@ -17,15 +16,12 @@ or .I Realistic look for the emulator. - - .SH DOCUMENTATION The ultimate documentation for Free42 is the manual for the HP-42S. You can obtain this manual in PDF format by purchasing the CD or DVD set from The Museum of HP Calculators (http://hpmuseum.org/). Alternatively, there is an independently written HP-42S/Free42 manual, by Jose Lauro Strapasson, which you can download free at http://joselauro.com/42s.pdf. - .SH EDITIONS What's the deal with the Decimal and Binary (free42dec/free42bin)? @@ -51,16 +47,13 @@ you need full HP-42S compatibility, you should use Free42 Decimal. If you don't fully understand the above, it is best to play safe and use Free42 Decimal (free42dec). - .SH SEE ALSO The original documentation provided upstream, available in /usr/share/doc/free42/README.gtk.gz The keymap in /usr/share/doc/free42/keymap.txt.gz - .SH AUTHORS/CREDITS Free42 is (C) 2004-2010, by Thomas Okken BCD support (C) 2005-2009, by Hugh Steers / voidware - .SH LICENSE GPL-2 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: free42
Le lundi 20 décembre 2010 à 13:07 +0100, Etienne Millon a écrit : On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 10:44:15AM -0500, Jean Schurger wrote: Hi, i've updated the packages, can you have a look ? http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/free42/free42_1.4.66-1.dsc Jean. Hello, It seems good to me. It builds in a clean chroot, and is lintian clean upto -E. debian/rules can probably be simplified with compat level 7 (dh $@) but works as is. Minor nitpicks : - The quote from upstream in debian/copyright should probably be wrapped. - In your manpage, I don't think that you have to put that much whitespace (see attached patch). Hi, Thanks for your patch. I've quoted the copyright quotes as suggested. I would like to simplify the debian/rules using (dh $@) but i think i don't understand clearly what is mean. Upstream sources does not use autotools. Is (dh $@) still applicable ? I think i'm missing something. Jean. -- Jean Schurger http://schurger.org GPG: http://schurger.org/jean.asc signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: free42
Le vendredi 10 décembre 2010 à 20:02 +0100, Etienne Millon a écrit : Again, no need to CC me :) Oh yes, i did not see the second patch (I'm not sure how it appear, maybe when i was playing with quilt). According to the patch header, it has been created by dpkg-source. I can't remember the exact process, though. Well, there is only one option: -skin, I'll put it in the man page. But the upstream comes with other documentation than two README files that overlap. I will figure what to do with that. Might be an upstream issue too. Documenting this and give a pointer to the full documentation may be enough. - Probably an upstream issue, but I find it confusing to ship two binaries that differ only in the way they interpret numbers. IMHO that should be a command-line switch or a menu option. I've looked quickly to the sources, move that 'option' into a switch will be a very big patch, but i think debian have a solution for that. May be i can build two packages, and use update-alternatives to handle that problem. Is that an acceptable solution for you ? Alternatives makes sense when two packages provides the same service. With free42, different users may use different settings (or, a user may use different settings). Building two executables is fine. You can even have a single manpage (see for example grep, egrep, rgrep). Cheers Hi, i've updated the packages, can you have a look ? http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/free42/free42_1.4.66-1.dsc Jean. -- Jean Schurger http://schurger.org GPG: http://schurger.org/jean.asc signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: free42
Le vendredi 10 décembre 2010 à 20:02 +0100, Etienne Millon a écrit : Again, no need to CC me :) Oh yes, i did not see the second patch (I'm not sure how it appear, maybe when i was playing with quilt). According to the patch header, it has been created by dpkg-source. I can't remember the exact process, though. Well, there is only one option: -skin, I'll put it in the man page. But the upstream comes with other documentation than two README files that overlap. I will figure what to do with that. Might be an upstream issue too. Documenting this and give a pointer to the full documentation may be enough. - Probably an upstream issue, but I find it confusing to ship two binaries that differ only in the way they interpret numbers. IMHO that should be a command-line switch or a menu option. I've looked quickly to the sources, move that 'option' into a switch will be a very big patch, but i think debian have a solution for that. May be i can build two packages, and use update-alternatives to handle that problem. Is that an acceptable solution for you ? Alternatives makes sense when two packages provides the same service. With free42, different users may use different settings (or, a user may use different settings). Building two executables is fine. You can even have a single manpage (see for example grep, egrep, rgrep). Hi, I've fixed the man (and doc), and tuned the Makefile patch. Can you have a look please ? Jean. -- Jean Schurger http://schurger.org GPG: http://schurger.org/jean.asc signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: free42
On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 08:07:30PM -0500, Jean Schurger wrote: Le jeudi 09 décembre 2010 à 08:59 +0100, Etienne Millon a écrit : On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 05:39:25PM -0500, Jean Schurger wrote: What's the 'good' way to ask to review an update of a package like this one ? I should continue to dput it as replacement, and ask in that thread ? dput -f mentors it will overwrite the previous package. You can state that you updated it in this thread and it will probably be fine. Hi, i've updated my free42 package. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/free42 - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/free42/free42_1.4.66-1.dsc Can you have a look ? Jean. Hello, Package builds cleanly and is lintian clean. That's good news :) - dpkg_shlibdeps does not complain anymore. It means that your patch works. However, you have included two patches, and one (0_less_libs.diff) does not apply (probably because your output directory was named 2). The second one is fine, though. You can delete the non-working one and remove it from debian/patches/series. - you use a lot of calls to pwd in debian/rules. This is not necessary, relative paths work too : `pwd`/x is equivalent to x. Moreover, debhelper can help a lot here (dh $@). - Your manpages should describe how the binary is run. Does it have command-line options ? etc. That will be the first thing your users will try if they don't get how the package work. Other documentation should go… in the documentation :-) . - Probably an upstream issue, but I find it confusing to ship two binaries that differ only in the way they interpret numbers. IMHO that should be a command-line switch or a menu option. Cheers -- Etienne Millon signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: free42
Le vendredi 10 décembre 2010 à 10:53 +0100, Etienne Millon a écrit : On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 08:07:30PM -0500, Jean Schurger wrote: Le jeudi 09 décembre 2010 à 08:59 +0100, Etienne Millon a écrit : On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 05:39:25PM -0500, Jean Schurger wrote: What's the 'good' way to ask to review an update of a package like this one ? I should continue to dput it as replacement, and ask in that thread ? dput -f mentors it will overwrite the previous package. You can state that you updated it in this thread and it will probably be fine. Hi, i've updated my free42 package. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/free42 - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/free42/free42_1.4.66-1.dsc Can you have a look ? Jean. Hello, Package builds cleanly and is lintian clean. That's good news :) - dpkg_shlibdeps does not complain anymore. It means that your patch works. However, you have included two patches, and one (0_less_libs.diff) does not apply (probably because your output directory was named 2). The second one is fine, though. You can delete the non-working one and remove it from debian/patches/series. Oh yes, i did not see the second patch (I'm not sure how it appear, maybe when i was playing with quilt). - you use a lot of calls to pwd in debian/rules. This is not necessary, relative paths work too : `pwd`/x is equivalent to x. Moreover, debhelper can help a lot here (dh $@). I will clean that - Your manpages should describe how the binary is run. Does it have command-line options ? etc. That will be the first thing your users will try if they don't get how the package work. Other documentation should go… in the documentation :-) . Well, there is only one option: -skin, I'll put it in the man page. But the upstream comes with other documentation than two README files that overlap. I will figure what to do with that. Might be an upstream issue too. - Probably an upstream issue, but I find it confusing to ship two binaries that differ only in the way they interpret numbers. IMHO that should be a command-line switch or a menu option. I've looked quickly to the sources, move that 'option' into a switch will be a very big patch, but i think debian have a solution for that. May be i can build two packages, and use update-alternatives to handle that problem. Is that an acceptable solution for you ? Jean. -- Jean Schurger http://schurger.org GPG: http://schurger.org/jean.asc signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: free42
Again, no need to CC me :) Oh yes, i did not see the second patch (I'm not sure how it appear, maybe when i was playing with quilt). According to the patch header, it has been created by dpkg-source. I can't remember the exact process, though. Well, there is only one option: -skin, I'll put it in the man page. But the upstream comes with other documentation than two README files that overlap. I will figure what to do with that. Might be an upstream issue too. Documenting this and give a pointer to the full documentation may be enough. - Probably an upstream issue, but I find it confusing to ship two binaries that differ only in the way they interpret numbers. IMHO that should be a command-line switch or a menu option. I've looked quickly to the sources, move that 'option' into a switch will be a very big patch, but i think debian have a solution for that. May be i can build two packages, and use update-alternatives to handle that problem. Is that an acceptable solution for you ? Alternatives makes sense when two packages provides the same service. With free42, different users may use different settings (or, a user may use different settings). Building two executables is fine. You can even have a single manpage (see for example grep, egrep, rgrep). Cheers -- Etienne Millon signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: free42
Le jeudi 09 décembre 2010 à 08:59 +0100, Etienne Millon a écrit : On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 05:39:25PM -0500, Jean Schurger wrote: What's the 'good' way to ask to review an update of a package like this one ? I should continue to dput it as replacement, and ask in that thread ? dput -f mentors it will overwrite the previous package. You can state that you updated it in this thread and it will probably be fine. Thanks. Well, it's updated. Jean. -- Jean Schurger http://schurger.org GPG: http://schurger.org/jean.asc signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: free42
Le jeudi 09 décembre 2010 à 08:59 +0100, Etienne Millon a écrit : On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 05:39:25PM -0500, Jean Schurger wrote: What's the 'good' way to ask to review an update of a package like this one ? I should continue to dput it as replacement, and ask in that thread ? dput -f mentors it will overwrite the previous package. You can state that you updated it in this thread and it will probably be fine. Hi, i've updated my free42 package. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/free42 - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/free42/free42_1.4.66-1.dsc Can you have a look ? Jean. -- Jean Schurger http://schurger.org GPG: http://schurger.org/jean.asc signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
RFS: free42
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package free42. * Package name: free42 Version : 1.4.66-1 Upstream Author : Thomas Okken * URL : http://thomasokken.com/free42/ * License : GPL2 Section : misc It builds these binary packages: free42 - HP42S Emulator The package appears to be lintian clean. My motivation for maintaining this package is: This software maintained by its author and really usefull, and it's a free implementation. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/free42 - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/free42/free42_1.4.66-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Jean Schurger -- Jean Schurger http://schurger.org GPG: http://schurger.org/jean.asc signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: free42
Hello, I am not a DD and thus can not sponsor you. However I had a look at your package. - It fails to build in a clean chroot. At the beginning of the build it complains about missing headers : touch symlinks g++ -MMD -Wall -g -I/usr/X11R6/include -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -DVERSION=\1.4.66\ -c -o shell_main.o shell_main.cc shell_main.cc:20:21: warning: gtk/gtk.h: No such file or directory shell_main.cc:21:28: warning: gdk/gdkkeysyms.h: No such file or directory shell_main.cc:22:22: warning: gdk/gdkx.h: No such file or directory In file included from shell_main.cc:35: shell_main.h:25: error: expected initializer before '*' token shell_main.h:42: warning: 'typedef' was ignored in this declaration You probably need to adjust Build-Dependencies to include libgtk2-dev instead ok libgtk2. - debian/rules: I believe it can be simplified if you use the dh $@ technique. rm ChangeLog || true should be changed to rm -f Changelog as the former ignores all errors, not only this file does not exist. - debian/changelog should mention that it is a new package and that this upload would close an ITP. The 3.0 (quilt) format is not relevant here as it has not changed. As I couldn't build the package, I can't help you more, but I encourage you to use a build system such as cowbuilder, that isolates the package from your host system. Hope that helps, -- Etienne Millon signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: free42
Hi Jean, Jean Schurger wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package free42. * Package name: free42 Version : 1.4.66-1 Upstream Author : Thomas Okken * URL : http://thomasokken.com/free42/ * License : GPL2 Section : misc It builds these binary packages: free42 - HP42S Emulator The package appears to be lintian clean. After applying the fix suggested by Etienne, I managed to build your package. I did not review it yet, but there are a few lintian warnings you may want to have a look into: I: free42 source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field section in package free42 I: free42 source: debian-watch-file-is-missing I: free42: extended-description-is-probably-too-short P: free42: no-homepage-field W: free42: new-package-should-close-itp-bug W: free42: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/free42bin W: free42: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/free42dec I: free42: desktop-entry-contains-encoding-key /usr/share/applications/free42bin.desktop:2 Encoding W: free42: desktop-entry-invalid-category Categories=GTK /usr/share/applications/free42bin.desktop I: free42: desktop-entry-contains-encoding-key /usr/share/applications/free42dec.desktop:2 Encoding W: free42: desktop-entry-invalid-category Categories=GTK /usr/share/applications/free42dec.desktop (You can get details about these messages by running 'lintian -iI --pedantic' on your .changes file.) 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/20101208160600.gb10...@lin51.tphys.uni-heidelberg.de
Re: RFS: free42
Le mercredi 08 décembre 2010 à 17:06 +0100, Benoît Knecht a écrit : Hi Jean, Jean Schurger wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package free42. * Package name: free42 Version : 1.4.66-1 Upstream Author : Thomas Okken * URL : http://thomasokken.com/free42/ * License : GPL2 Section : misc It builds these binary packages: free42 - HP42S Emulator The package appears to be lintian clean. After applying the fix suggested by Etienne, I managed to build your package. I did not review it yet, but there are a few lintian warnings you may want to have a look into: I: free42 source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field section in package free42 I: free42 source: debian-watch-file-is-missing I: free42: extended-description-is-probably-too-short P: free42: no-homepage-field W: free42: new-package-should-close-itp-bug W: free42: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/free42bin W: free42: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/free42dec I: free42: desktop-entry-contains-encoding-key /usr/share/applications/free42bin.desktop:2 Encoding W: free42: desktop-entry-invalid-category Categories=GTK /usr/share/applications/free42bin.desktop I: free42: desktop-entry-contains-encoding-key /usr/share/applications/free42dec.desktop:2 Encoding W: free42: desktop-entry-invalid-category Categories=GTK /usr/share/applications/free42dec.desktop (You can get details about these messages by running 'lintian -iI --pedantic' on your .changes file.) I've updated my packages fixing the problems, can you have a look ? http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/free42/ Jean. -- Jean Schurger http://schurger.org GPG: http://schurger.org/jean.asc signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: free42
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 03:30:36PM -0500, Jean Schurger wrote: I've updated my packages fixing the problems, can you have a look ? http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/free42/ Jean. Hello Jean, I could build your package. Here are a few remarks : - lintian still complains about missing manpages for free42bin and free42dec. Your users will probably do, too :-) - dpkg-shlibdeps seems to complain about useless dependencies on libfontconfig.so.1 libatk-1.0.so.0 librt.so.1 libgio-2.0.so.0 libcairo.so.2 libpango-1.0.so.0 libgmodule-2.0.so.0 libgthread-2.0.so.0 libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 libfreetype.so.6 libpangoft2-1.0.so.0 Those come from your Makefile which calls pkg-config --libs gtk+-2.0. I am not sure about the best solution for this one. It's only a warning, though. Cheers -- Etienne Millon signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: free42
Le mercredi 08 décembre 2010 à 21:56 +0100, Etienne Millon a écrit : On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 03:30:36PM -0500, Jean Schurger wrote: I've updated my packages fixing the problems, can you have a look ? http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/free42/ Jean. Hello Jean, I could build your package. Here are a few remarks : - lintian still complains about missing manpages for free42bin and free42dec. Your users will probably do, too :-) Yes, i don't know what to do with that. I should not use the 'unodcumented' because i've understood that it is/will be deprecated. And i have no manual for that on the software sources. Is there a template of manual that i can use ? - dpkg-shlibdeps seems to complain about useless dependencies on libfontconfig.so.1 libatk-1.0.so.0 librt.so.1 libgio-2.0.so.0 libcairo.so.2 libpango-1.0.so.0 libgmodule-2.0.so.0 libgthread-2.0.so.0 libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 libfreetype.so.6 libpangoft2-1.0.so.0 Those come from your Makefile which calls pkg-config --libs gtk+-2.0. I am not sure about the best solution for this one. It's only a warning, though. Yes, i was knowing that too, the Makefile is part of the sources, should i patch it to prevent thoses links ? Free42 is linked indirectly to those libraries as they are gtk+ dependencies, and free42 use gtk+. -- Jean Schurger http://schurger.org GPG: http://schurger.org/jean.asc signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: free42
(no need to CC me, I am subscribed to the mailing-list) On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 04:04:09PM -0500, Jean Schurger wrote: Yes, i don't know what to do with that. I should not use the 'unodcumented' because i've understood that it is/will be deprecated. And i have no manual for that on the software sources. Is there a template of manual that i can use ? You can for example learn from an existing manpage (they are text source files). There are plenty of them in /usr/share/man :-) You can also use a compiler that will produce a manpage from a (simpler) description. I've used pandoc (packaged in Debian) which does the job. Once it's done you should send the manpages to upstream, too. - dpkg-shlibdeps seems to complain about useless dependencies on libfontconfig.so.1 libatk-1.0.so.0 librt.so.1 libgio-2.0.so.0 libcairo.so.2 libpango-1.0.so.0 libgmodule-2.0.so.0 libgthread-2.0.so.0 libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 libfreetype.so.6 libpangoft2-1.0.so.0 Those come from your Makefile which calls pkg-config --libs gtk+-2.0. I am not sure about the best solution for this one. It's only a warning, though. Yes, i was knowing that too, the Makefile is part of the sources, should i patch it to prevent thoses links ? Free42 is linked indirectly to those libraries as they are gtk+ dependencies, and free42 use gtk+. If there's actually a way to build in a cleaner way (and remove explicit dependencies), you should patch the upstream sources. As you're using the new 3.0 (quilt) format, it means recording a patch and putting it in debian/patches. You can do that by hand (tedious), or directly with quilt. If you are using a higher level system (git-buildpackage, …), there should be a direct way to do that, too. Upstream will probably be happy to merge this patch in their next version, too (once again, assuming that it's not a false warning). -- Etienne Millon signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: free42
Le mercredi 08 décembre 2010 à 22:21 +0100, Etienne Millon a écrit : (no need to CC me, I am subscribed to the mailing-list) On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 04:04:09PM -0500, Jean Schurger wrote: Yes, i don't know what to do with that. I should not use the 'unodcumented' because i've understood that it is/will be deprecated. And i have no manual for that on the software sources. Is there a template of manual that i can use ? You can for example learn from an existing manpage (they are text source files). There are plenty of them in /usr/share/man :-) You can also use a compiler that will produce a manpage from a (simpler) description. I've used pandoc (packaged in Debian) which does the job. Once it's done you should send the manpages to upstream, too. - dpkg-shlibdeps seems to complain about useless dependencies on libfontconfig.so.1 libatk-1.0.so.0 librt.so.1 libgio-2.0.so.0 libcairo.so.2 libpango-1.0.so.0 libgmodule-2.0.so.0 libgthread-2.0.so.0 libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 libfreetype.so.6 libpangoft2-1.0.so.0 Those come from your Makefile which calls pkg-config --libs gtk+-2.0. I am not sure about the best solution for this one. It's only a warning, though. Yes, i was knowing that too, the Makefile is part of the sources, should i patch it to prevent thoses links ? Free42 is linked indirectly to those libraries as they are gtk+ dependencies, and free42 use gtk+. If there's actually a way to build in a cleaner way (and remove explicit dependencies), you should patch the upstream sources. As you're using the new 3.0 (quilt) format, it means recording a patch and putting it in debian/patches. You can do that by hand (tedious), or directly with quilt. If you are using a higher level system (git-buildpackage, …), there should be a direct way to do that, too. Upstream will probably be happy to merge this patch in their next version, too (once again, assuming that it's not a false warning). Thanks, i'll fix thoses two issues. What's the 'good' way to ask to review an update of a package like this one ? I should continue to dput it as replacement, and ask in that thread ? -- Jean Schurger http://schurger.org GPG: http://schurger.org/jean.asc signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
RFS: free42
From: Jean Schurger j...@schurger.org To: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org Subject: RFS: free42 Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package free42. * Package name: free42 Version : 1.4.66-1 Upstream Author : http://thomasokken.com/free42/ * URL : Thomas Okken * License : GPL-2 Section : misc It builds these binary packages: free42 - HP42S Emulator The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 606358 My motivation for maintaining this package is: this nice piece of software should be available in debian. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/free42 - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/free42/free42_1.4.66-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards -- Jean Schurger http://schurger.org GPG: http://schurger.org/jean.asc signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: free42
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 05:39:25PM -0500, Jean Schurger wrote: What's the 'good' way to ask to review an update of a package like this one ? I should continue to dput it as replacement, and ask in that thread ? dput -f mentors it will overwrite the previous package. You can state that you updated it in this thread and it will probably be fine. -- Etienne Millon -- 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/20101209075908.ga11...@john.ssi.corp
