FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Java

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-25-2009, 03:44 PM
Dominik Smatana
 
Default Request for review

Hello,

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Matthew Johnson <mjj29@debian.org> wrote:

Should I change:
Build-Depends-Indep: default-jdk
to:
Build-Depends-Indep: default-jdk-builddep


Well, currently default-jdk-builddep => default-jdk, so it's pretty
irrelevant, but yeah, it's probably a good idea



fixed in r8116



I got this warning:
jh_libs -i
Warning: This command has been deprecated in favour of jh_installibs

I'm going to check jh_installibs then...


Oh, yeah, they are identical, but someone said jh_installibs was more in
line with the dh_ command names.



fixed in r8116



It all seems to build properly. My only question, why aren't you
packaging version 2.0, which seems to be on the project page?



Version 2.0 will follow soon too... hopefully


Thanks
Dominik Smatana
 
Old 07-22-2012, 12:18 AM
Robert Park
 
Default Request for review

Hi all,

I'm a novice packager attempting to put together a package for my
GNOME application. I've successfully put together a working package,
and pushed it to my PPA here:

https://launchpad.net/~gottengeography/+archive/ppa

I also sent an IFP to debian's WNPP but I'm not really sure how to
proceed with the actual getting of the package into debian beyond
that. I'd like some general feedback as it's my first package ever and
it may be a bit rough around the edges.

lintian gives a couple warnings, but they don't seem especially
relevant to me (eg, no manpage, but it's a graphical app that comes
with a good deal of on screen help, so a man page would be pointless).

When I enable my PPA, it installs and runs nicely, at least for me.

Anyway, any help or advice is appreciated. I'm a bit overwhelmed by
all the reading I've been doing these last couple days, so my
apologies if I've overlooked something.

--
http://gottengeography.ca

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 07-22-2012, 12:41 PM
Stefano Rivera
 
Default Request for review

Hi Robert (2012.07.22_02:18:36_+0200)
> I also sent an IFP to debian's WNPP but I'm not really sure how to
> proceed with the actual getting of the package into debian beyond
> that. I'd like some general feedback as it's my first package ever and
> it may be a bit rough around the edges.

The best reference I can see for that is [0]. Basically, either you mail
the debian-mentors mailing list, asking for someone to sponsor it, or
you file a bug against sponsorship-requests (which achieves the same
thing, but keeps an open bug to track the review process in) [1].

[0]: http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMentorsFaq#How_do_I_add_a_new_package_to_the _archive.3F
[1]: http://wiki.debian.org/Mentors/BTS

> lintian gives a couple warnings, but they don't seem especially
> relevant to me (eg, no manpage, but it's a graphical app that comes
> with a good deal of on screen help, so a man page would be pointless).

A manpage isn't entirely pointless. You can read a long thread on the
topic [2], the end result of which was that Debian should still try and
have manpages for graphical applications, even if they are fairly short
and un-interesting.

[2]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.policy/12983

When someone does look at your application, they'll probably point you
at all the things lintian had to say. So it's worth considering each
issue it raised, and whether it's worth fixing.

I try and keep my packages lintian clean [3], except for the issues that
really are implausible to fix. There's nothing you can do about
upstreams without changelogs, for instance.

[3]: http://lintian.debian.org/full/stefanor@debian.org.html

> Anyway, any help or advice is appreciated. I'm a bit overwhelmed by
> all the reading I've been doing these last couple days, so my
> apologies if I've overlooked something.

I think that's fairly normal. We have a lot of documentation

SR

--
Stefano Rivera
http://tumbleweed.org.za/
H: +27 21 461 1230 C: +27 72 419 8559

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 07-22-2012, 10:20 PM
Robert Park
 
Default Request for review

On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Stefano Rivera <stefanor@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> The best reference I can see for that is [0]. Basically, either you mail
> the debian-mentors mailing list, asking for someone to sponsor it, or
> you file a bug against sponsorship-requests (which achieves the same
> thing, but keeps an open bug to track the review process in) [1].
>
> [0]: http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMentorsFaq#How_do_I_add_a_new_package_to_the _archive.3F
> [1]: http://wiki.debian.org/Mentors/BTS

Thanks for that. One thing that I'm particularly unclear on is the
versions / distributions. I can't submit a debian package that says
'precise' on it... so what do I say instead, 'sid'? or just
'unstable'?

Also, are the package names consistent between ubuntu and debian? Can
I take a package that works on ubuntu and be confident that all I have
to do is rename 'precise' to something else, and it'll be a first
class debian package with no broken dependencies? And then later on,
when ubuntu picks it up from debian, will somebody (me?) have to
convert it back to 'precise' or 'quantal' or whatever? Or will it just
work as-is?

--
http://gottengeography.ca

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 07-23-2012, 12:26 AM
Aditya Vaidya
 
Default Request for review

Hello,

For the distribution, I think you either put "unstable"/"sid" or "UNRELEASED", though on the Debian Games Team's wiki page, they said they don't accept packages with the distribution "UNRELEASED", though I'm not sure if it applies to all packages.



For the most part, Ubuntu package names are consistent with Debian package names. The only exceptions are, really, either non-free software (I think), metapackages (e.g. 'ubuntu-desktop'; you shouldn't have to worry about these), or things that aren't packaged in Debian but are still in Ubuntu (e.g. unity).



Regarding importing the packages from Debian into Ubuntu, I'm pretty sure that the importer (a bot, I think) will take care of changing "sid" to "quantal" for you, so no need to worry about that.



Also, just on a side note: I think the version you're submitting to Mentors (or wherever in Debian) should be "2.0-1", not "2.0-precise3".

Sincerely,
kroq-gar78



On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Robert Park <robru@gottengeography.ca> wrote:


On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Stefano Rivera <stefanor@ubuntu.com> wrote:

> The best reference I can see for that is [0]. Basically, either you mail

> the debian-mentors mailing list, asking for someone to sponsor it, or

> you file a bug against sponsorship-requests (which achieves the same

> thing, but keeps an open bug to track the review process in) [1].

>

> [0]: http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMentorsFaq#How_do_I_add_a_new_package_to_the _archive.3F

> [1]: http://wiki.debian.org/Mentors/BTS



Thanks for that. One thing that I'm particularly unclear on is the

versions / distributions. I can't submit a debian package that says

'precise' on it... so what do I say instead, 'sid'? or just

'unstable'?



Also, are the package names consistent between ubuntu and debian? Can

I take a package that works on ubuntu and be confident that all I have

to do is rename 'precise' to something else, and it'll be a first

class debian package with no broken dependencies? And then later on,

when ubuntu picks it up from debian, will somebody (me?) have to

convert it back to 'precise' or 'quantal' or whatever? Or will it just

work as-is?



--

http://gottengeography.ca



--

Ubuntu-motu mailing list

Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com

Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu



--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 07-23-2012, 12:50 AM
Robert Park
 
Default Request for review

On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Aditya Vaidya <kroq.gar78@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, just on a side note: I think the version you're submitting to Mentors
> (or wherever in Debian) should be "2.0-1", not "2.0-precise3".

This is the kind of answer I was looking for, thank you ;-)

I knew precise was wrong, but just wasn't really sure what to put
there. I had already guessed 2.0-4 because I wanted to make it clear
that it was newer than the precise3 one (although when I tested the
package, apt seemed to think that precise3 was the newer one, not sure
how it figured that -- I guess it just sorts the versions lexically
and numbers sort before letters?).

I opened up synaptic and pulled up changelogs for a handful of random
packages that didn't have 'ubuntu' in the version number, and they all
seem to be packaged for 'unstable', so that's what I've chosen for
mine, which I've now uploaded to mentors.debian.net. Of course, it
looks like debian is in freeze, so I guess I'm supposed to pursue
acceptance in universe before I'll be able to get it into debian
unstable. Is that right? I filed a needs-packaging bug in launchpad.

Thanks again.

--
http://gottengeography.ca

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 07-26-2012, 10:52 AM
Benjamin Drung
 
Default Request for review

Am Sonntag, den 22.07.2012, 19:50 -0500 schrieb Robert Park:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Aditya Vaidya <kroq.gar78@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Also, just on a side note: I think the version you're submitting to Mentors
> > (or wherever in Debian) should be "2.0-1", not "2.0-precise3".
>
> This is the kind of answer I was looking for, thank you ;-)
>
> I knew precise was wrong, but just wasn't really sure what to put
> there. I had already guessed 2.0-4 because I wanted to make it clear
> that it was newer than the precise3 one (although when I tested the
> package, apt seemed to think that precise3 was the newer one, not sure
> how it figured that -- I guess it just sorts the versions lexically
> and numbers sort before letters?).
>
> I opened up synaptic and pulled up changelogs for a handful of random
> packages that didn't have 'ubuntu' in the version number, and they all
> seem to be packaged for 'unstable', so that's what I've chosen for
> mine, which I've now uploaded to mentors.debian.net.

Debian uses -1, -2, and so on for the package revision. Ubuntu appends
ubuntu1, ubuntu2, and so on if they change something in the package.
-0ubuntu1, -0ubuntu2, and so on is used if the package is not taken from
Debian. -1 will be higher than any -0ubuntuX version.

> Of course, it
> looks like debian is in freeze, so I guess I'm supposed to pursue
> acceptance in universe before I'll be able to get it into debian
> unstable. Is that right? I filed a needs-packaging bug in launchpad.

The Debian freeze prevents packages to move from unstable to testing,
but it does not prevent new packages into unstable. It's recommended to
get the package in Debian first and then use requestsync (or syncpackage
if you have upload rights) to get it synced into Ubuntu.

I had a quick look at your package on mentors:

1) The changelog should only contain entries for version that are
actually in the archive. In your case, only one changelog entry would
remain.

2) You should close the ITP bug with your first upload.

3) Please drop the comments in debian/rules

4) The changelog Format should point to
http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/
instead of the unversioned http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5

5) You might want to use wrap-and-sort to make your debian/control file
look nicer.

6) >= 8.0.0 can be shortened to >= 8

7) The Vcs-* entries should point to the packaging branches and these
should preferable hosted on Debian infrastructure like Alioth.

8) Do you really need patches for your Debian package?

9) You should add a debian/watch file if you release source tarballs.

--
Benjamin Drung
Debian & Ubuntu Developer
--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 07-26-2012, 02:06 PM
Robert Park
 
Default Request for review

Quite the thorough review, thank you!

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:52 AM, Benjamin Drung <bdrung@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> Debian uses -1, -2, and so on for the package revision. Ubuntu appends
> ubuntu1, ubuntu2, and so on if they change something in the package.
> -0ubuntu1, -0ubuntu2, and so on is used if the package is not taken from
> Debian. -1 will be higher than any -0ubuntuX version.

Ok, that system makes more sense. I was running into trouble because I
didn't have the preceding 0 in the ubuntu version string.

>> Of course, it
>> looks like debian is in freeze, so I guess I'm supposed to pursue
>> acceptance in universe before I'll be able to get it into debian
>> unstable. Is that right? I filed a needs-packaging bug in launchpad.
>
> The Debian freeze prevents packages to move from unstable to testing,
> but it does not prevent new packages into unstable. It's recommended to
> get the package in Debian first and then use requestsync (or syncpackage
> if you have upload rights) to get it synced into Ubuntu.

Yes in theory, however I've been following a few other people's
request for sponsorship in debian-mentors and it seems nearly
impossible to get sponsorship during the freeze, because nobody cares
about new packages and everybody is busy testing the frozen 'testing'
distro.

> I had a quick look at your package on mentors:
>
> 1) The changelog should only contain entries for version that are
> actually in the archive. In your case, only one changelog entry would
> remain.

But the program has been packaged on a launchpad PPA up until this
point, so theoretically there are users in the wild with old versions
of this package. It's not like this is the first ever version of the
package and I just arbitrarily felt like creating a retroactive
changelog for nonexistent packages. Am I seriously supposed to
truncate the changelog just because I'm seeking the package's
inclusion in debian?

> 2) You should close the ITP bug with your first upload.
>
> 3) Please drop the comments in debian/rules
>
> 4) The changelog Format should point to
> http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/
> instead of the unversioned http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5
>
> 5) You might want to use wrap-and-sort to make your debian/control file
> look nicer.
>
> 6) >= 8.0.0 can be shortened to >= 8
>
> 7) The Vcs-* entries should point to the packaging branches and these
> should preferable hosted on Debian infrastructure like Alioth.

Ok, will do. Thanks for these tips.

> 8) Do you really need patches for your Debian package?

Why not? The patches are mostly to do with distutils, specifically in
the sense that the 'upstream' tarball is configured to be able to run
uninstalled, but the debian package drops some of that code because it
was interfering with the building of the package.

> 9) You should add a debian/watch file if you release source tarballs.

Any advice on what a watch file would look like for this github page?

https://github.com/robru/gottengeography/tags

Thanks!

--
http://gottengeography.ca

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 07-26-2012, 02:54 PM
Andrew Starr-Bochicchio
 
Default Request for review

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Robert Park <robru@gottengeography.ca> wrote:
>> 9) You should add a debian/watch file if you release source tarballs.
>
> Any advice on what a watch file would look like for this github page?
>
> https://github.com/robru/gottengeography/tags

Gunnar Wolf helpfully provides a re-director series that makes this simple:

http://githubredir.debian.net/

So your would probably look like:

version=3
http://githubredir.debian.net/github/robru/gottengeography (.*).tar.gz

-- Andrew Starr-Bochicchio

Ubuntu Developer <https://launchpad.net/~andrewsomething>
Debian Maintainer
<http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=a.starr.b%40gmail.com>
PGP/GPG Key ID: D53FDCB1

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 07-26-2012, 03:20 PM
Robert Park
 
Default Request for review

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio
<a.starr.b@gmail.com> wrote:
> So your would probably look like:
>
> version=3
> http://githubredir.debian.net/github/robru/gottengeography (.*).tar.gz

Oh, excellent. Thanks!

--
http://gottengeography.ca

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:20 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org