[Pkg-mozext-maintainers] Bug#623970: ITP: xul-ext-cookie-monster -- please package Iceweasel Cookie Monster extension
lunar at debian.org
Fri Sep 9 20:41:04 UTC 2011
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 07:26:47PM +0200, Fabrizio Regalli wrote:
> > It is *way* better to have an _unpacked_ source tree as upstream.
> > Otherwise, reviewing upstream changes is going to be a pain. Writing
> > patches against upstream source is going to be even more than that.
> A 'repack.sh' script that grabs and unpack the .jar file and re-create
> the tarball could be a reasonable solution?
> Or download the xpi, unpack the jar and create .orig.tar.gz from it
> (including install.rdf file) is enough?
Whatever feels right to you. The second solution would only be
acceptable if that process was documented in debian/README.source, IMHO.
What would be desirable with a `repack` script is to make it compatible
with uscan. Otherwise the watch file would need to be amended not to use
> > > > * Package is missing a README.source
> > > >
> > > > Even if it's not mandatory, the package is really missing a
> > > > README.source. It is supposed to be under the pkg-mozext umbrella,
> > > > so other member of that team should be able to upload the package
> > > > if the need arises.
> > > >
> > > > Things that ought to be documented are at least: git-buildpackage
> > > > usage, pristine-tar usage, the upstream-changelog file (why, what and
> > > > how to update it).
> > >
> > > Usually I never used, but if necessary I can create it.
> > Am I supposed to guess everything about this uncommon
> > `debian/upstream-changelog` file alone?
> Don't know, but if you take a look at 'tabmixplus' package for example
> you can check by yourself that the README.source does not exist (and
> upstream changelog exists)
And? It's not because something a sibbling package is of average quality
that you should not strive for the best.
> > > > * Inaccurate copyright file
> > > >
> > > > The copyright file that gets installed in
> > > > /usr/share/doc/xul-ext-cookie-monster/copyright is inaccurate,
> > > > as the MPL license is not copied to the same directory.
> > >
> > > I create a new copyright file, hoping this time is right.
> > Is the MPL file going to be copied automatically in
> > /usr/share/doc/xul-ext-cookie-monster?
> Sorry, my fault. (I forget to commit 'docs' file to git)
You should always double-check the result of a build. Source, diff, and
the content of the binary packages.
Here is what I do, at least:
$ eval $(lesspipe)
$ dcmd less ../build-area/$NEW_VERSION.changes
$ debdiff ../build-area/$OLD_VERSION.dsc ../build-area/$NEW_VERSION.dsc
$ debdiff ../build-area/$OLD_VERSION.changes ../build-area/$NEW_VERSION.changes
Jérémy Bobbio .''`.
jeremy.bobbio at irq7.fr : : : lunar at debian.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the Pkg-mozext-maintainers