I tend to agree with Michael Terry here; there are some issues with the
package in its current state that I would consider blockers for
inclusion in main:

1) autopkgtests are effectively disabled (script executes nothing)
When you only rebuild the package to run the unit tests, you are running tests 
against a different package than what is in the archive. The rebuild would 
cause any of the build-depends packages to be picked up in their new version 
when unit tests are run, causing tests to pass when they should be failing. 
This is most likely not the only place where this issue exists, but it should 
be fixed when noticed. To be able to know something is wrong (and that 
unity-scope-click possibly needs a rebuild), we need the autopkgtests to block 
promotion from proposed of the other packages.

Fixing the test harness to work correctly should be a high priority for
main inclusion.

2) departments.db is an included generated file without being generated
by the build

This is normally cause for an upload to not make it in Debian (and in
Ubuntu). The key here is "not considered as the preferred form of
modification", in that we don't expect developers to do modifications
directly to that file, but rather generate it using a compiled binary
from the package source to download further data. The necessary data is
probably available from the archive or elsewhere to be retrieved and
parsed to generate the compiled database. I expect at least that to be
possible, or that to build a new source package upload, the "seed data"
could be included in the upload. If necessary, consider having a
separate source package that contains only any .desktop (or whatever
format) data necessary to compile the database at build time. This will
further make it easier to update the database with a simple no-change
rebuild if the data is already provided in the archive as an
(automated?) export of the relevant information required to build the
cache. This then opens the door to having the departments.db something
completely separate from unity-scope-click (ie. built directly from a
separate source that is the data export from click packages). Doing so
appears to me to be relatively trivial.

"Your package contains generated files (such as compressed .js
libraries) without corresponding original form. They're not considered
as the preferred form of modification, so you will either have to
provide corresponding original form, or remove them from your tarball,
eventually depending on an already available packages to provide missing
features." [1]

[1] https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html


Finally, there are stray lintian warnings:

N: Processing binary package unity-scope-click-init-departments (version 
0.1.1+16.10.20160808-0ubuntu1, arch amd64) ...
I: unity-scope-click-init-departments: spelling-error-in-binary 
usr/sbin/init-departments occured occurred
W: unity-scope-click-init-departments: extended-description-line-too-long
W: unity-scope-click-init-departments: extended-description-line-too-long
W: unity-scope-click-init-departments: package-has-long-file-name 74 (83) > 80
W: unity-scope-click-init-departments: binary-without-manpage 
N: ----
N: Processing binary package unity-scope-click (version 
0.1.1+16.10.20160808-0ubuntu1, arch amd64) ...
I: unity-scope-click: hardening-no-bindnow 
I: unity-scope-click: hardening-no-bindnow 

This further highlights the need for more carefully looking at the state
of init-departments, along with the number of old open bugs against this

hardening-no-bindnow is simply a good fix to package along with other
changes to the package if possible; not to be considered a blocker (it
is highly recommended by the Security Team, but is not currently a build

I'd go as far as saying that 1) and 2) are blockers for inclusion in
main, and show that unity-scope-click is perhaps on par with the level
of maintenance that we expect of packages in main.

You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.

  [MIR] unity-scope-click

To manage notifications about this bug go to:

ubuntu-bugs mailing list

Reply via email to