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