[Debichem-devel] cclib

[Karol M. Langner]

Hi Daniel,

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 10:39:21PM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 12.04.2011, 11:00 +0200 schrieb Karol M. Langner:
> > Hi,
> > 
> >  Thanks for looking at it! I fixed all the things you pointed out and
> > commited the changes, with comments bellow.
> 
> besides everything else, there are several other issues. lintian e.g.
> complains pretty much:
> 
> > W: cclib source: build-depends-on-python-dev-with-no-arch-any
> > W: cclib: new-package-should-close-itp-bug
> > W: cclib: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/ccget
> > W: cclib: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/cda
> > E: cclib: python-script-but-no-python-dep usr/bin/ccget
> > E: cclib: python-script-but-no-python-dep usr/bin/cda
> > W: cclib: package-contains-upstream-install-documentation usr/share/doc/cclib/INSTALL
> > W: cclib: extra-license-file usr/share/doc/cclib/LICENSE.gz
> > W: python-cclib: wrong-section-according-to-package-name python-cclib => python
> > W: python-cclib: new-package-should-close-itp-bug
> > W: python-cclib: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/ccget
> > W: python-cclib: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/cda
> > E: python-cclib: python-script-but-no-python-dep usr/bin/ccget
> > E: python-cclib: python-script-but-no-python-dep usr/bin/cda
> 
> Looking above, cclib and python-cclib will ship the same files
> (e.g. /usr/bin/ccget and cda). But that's not all: There is already a
> file /usr/bin/cda in the package xmcd. So this is a file conflict, which
> must be solved - e.g. by renaming the binary in cclib. I further see
> some targets getting called several times during the build process.
> Looking at debian/rules, this might be caused by the override target of
> dh_auto_install: the target calls dh_auto_install itself, but this tool
> makes use of setup.py if available! You probably don't want to run
> dh_auto_install together with your separate calls to setupy.py.

I believe that I fixed all these things, except the clash of the names. What is
the best way to change the name of a file which is specified in debian/cclib.install?

> Are you interested in getting patches from Michael and me to learn more
> about the packaging or do you want us to commit changes directly (which
> is the more direct way to fix issues)?

I would be happy to learn more about packaging, but it really depends on how much
time you guys have! I'm a big fan of Debian, so I am interested in contributing
in the long term. I never had the time/will, but cclib I have the motivation.

> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 12:10:22AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > ** http://cclib.sfnet should be http://cclib.sf.net I guess
> > > ** Copyright seems to be "cclib (http://cclib.sf.net) is (c) 2006, the
> > >    cclib development team" for most files, rather than "Firstname
> > >    Lastname" ;)
> > 
> > I'm not sure I included enough. Could you check?
> 
> If you read the license, you'll read this term:
> 
> > To apply these terms, attach the following notices to the library.  It is
> > safest to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
> > convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least the
> > "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.
> > 
> >     <one line to give the library's name and a brief idea of what it does.>
> >     Copyright (C) <year>  <name of author>
> > 
> >     This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> >     modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
> >     License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
> >     version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
> > 
> >     This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> >     but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> >     MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU
> >     Lesser General Public License for more details.
> > 
> >     You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
> >     License along with this library; if not, write to the Free Software
> >     Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA  02110-1301  USA
> > 
> > Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.
> 
> So this is the boilerplate we are talking about. "Copyright ...." and
> then "This library is ...." up to "You should have received ...". See
> e.g. the debian/copyright of other packages in our SVN.

OK. The "Copyright ..." part is already in the copyright paragraph. Do I need
to repeat it in the license section?
 
> > > ** You don't (and should not) need to cite the full LGPL, just the
> > >    boilerplate and a link to /usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-2.1
> > 
> > Again, could you check I did this correctly?
> 
> Besides the above, debian/copyright is IMO ok.

OK

> [..]
> > So, it seems to build the packages correctly, although I am using
> > simply dpkg-buildpackage since I haven't figured out how to use
> > pbuilder yet. Is it so much better/easier?
> 
> It simply provides a clean build environment (I did this to test
> building the package). So you can test, if all necessary build
> dependencies are listed in debian/control or if you get the expected
> result when you build the package. It is better to use it to make sure,
> your package will build on Debians build-daemons.
> 
> Regards, Daniel

I am reading through the manual slowly and will try using it later today.

Cheers,
Karol

-- 
written by Karol Langner
Wed Apr 13 10:59:51 CEST 2011