Hello,

It's not worth a coredev's review, but here is my review of this
package. I used your repo and the ubuntu/devel branch.

- Packaging review
    1. MUST:
        1. Package must meet Ubuntu versioning & Maintainer requirements
                1. Maintainer should be Maintainer: Ubuntu Developers 
<[email protected]>
                2. Vcs-git and browser are not about upstream, but about the 
packaging. If it's just meant to be maintained with git-ubuntu it can be 
removed.
                3. Versioning is wrong, since there is no debian yet. It should 
be 2025.17.2-0ubuntu1
        2. Package must match current Ubuntu (and Debian) packaging policies
        3. Package must build, install, run, remove, and purge cleanly
                1. Build fail, because 5 tests are failing: 
https://launchpadlibrarian.net/843390000/buildlog_ubuntu-resolute-arm64.slang-compiler-2025.17_2025.17.2-1ubuntu1+ppa1_BUILDING.txt.gz
    2. SHOULD:
        1. Package should be lintian clean
                1. Not clean at all. Please run lintian -EvIL +pedantic on the 
\_sources.changes file. prebuilt windows binary are particularly concerning and 
you probably need to exclude them. very-long-length-in-source-files must also 
be adressed, overriden if necessary, because the can hide some binaries for 
example. 
                2. The existing lintian overrides are concerning, too. Can 
external/slang-binaries be entirely excluded from the package? and glm 
unvendored?
        2. Contents of debian/ should be sane
        3. Changelog should close a "needs-packaging" bug
                1. Please fix the changelog and add LP: #XXXXX in it. Also, 
IMHO it's way to verbose now, you should get rid of all the details. 
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#writing-useful-changelog-entries
 says: 
                   > Concentrate on describing significant and user-visible 
changes that were made since the last version. Focus on _what_ was changed — 
who, how and when are usually less important.
        4. Package should follow 
[http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html](http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html)
                1. Patches are missing the forwarded entry in the header. Also 
naming them 0001-x, 0002x, etc. is common practice
                2. Please self review the above link
            
- Maintenance review
    1. MUST:
        1. Package must contain a watch file or get-orig-source rule --> OK
            - If upstream is no more, the packager should consider adopting the 
upstream package somewhere
            - Packages who implement get-orig-source for packages with watch 
files get extra points
        2. Packaged version must not have any known security or critical bugs
    2. SHOULD:
        1. Packaging scripts should be readable and readily comprehensible
                1. don't use dpkg-parsechangelog -SVersion, follow lintian 
guidance to fix that. 
                2. Why are you sed'ing the .cmake in the rules files, and not 
in a patch?
        2. Upstream should be responsive, and maintain a bug tracker --> OK
        3. Packaged version should be latest upstream --> OK
        4. Package should not be native without an approved spec --> OK
- Suitability review
    1. MUST:
        1. Package must meet copyright / licensing requirements
                1. If you unvendor some stuff, like spirv tools, your copyright 
file will be more straightforward too.
        2. Non-native packages must have verifiable cryptographic path to 
upstream source --> OK
        3. Package must be advocated by at least two members of ubuntu-dev (the 
packager may count as one)
    2. SHOULD:
        1. Package should work on a standard Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Xubuntu/etc. system
        2. Package should provide hints to system services (app-install-data, 
menus, etc.) to ease installation and use
        3. Package should provide Ubuntu-specific documentation for variances 
in behaviour from upstream
        4. Package should provide a Homepage: header in debian/control -- > OK

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2129032

Title:
  [needs-packaging] slang-compiler

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/2129032/+subscriptions


-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

Reply via email to