request sponsor/upload for pd-pdstring

[Roman Haefeli]

Hi IOhannes

First of all, thanks a lot for having such a thorough look.

On Fri, 2011-09-30 at 13:24 +0200, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
[...]
> debian/control:
>  current standards-version is 3.9.2

fixed

> debian/control:
>  Uploaders field has a stray trailing comma

oops... fixed.

> debian/control:
>  any reason why you are so picky about the debhelper version?
>  as jonas has pointed out before (e.g in the recent pd-zexy thread),
> debhelper-7 is even in oldstable, so you might happily use "debhelper".

I'm using short-form dh with dh overrides. Lintian tells me that those
features are only available since 7.0.50. I read the thread about
pd-zexy, but I _think_ the situation might be different there, because
it is using cdbs (and thus probably not using dh overrides).

http://lintian.debian.org/tags/debhelper-overrides-need-versioned-build-depends.html

> (i know you care about ubuntu a lot, and i don't know the exact
> situation there)

I'm currently packaging on Debian/unstable and testing on both. I got
the exact same lintian warnings/errors on both.

> debian/control:
>  Depends on "pd",but there "pd" is only a virtual package, and you
> should provide a real one first.
> this is also caught by lintian:
> W: pd-pdstring: virtual-package-depends-without-real-package-depends
> depends: pd
> something like this should fix the problem:
> Depends: puredata-core | pd

fixed.

> debian/copyright:
>  is it really true that moocow holds the copyright for files in debian/?
>  no file in debian/ has an explicit copyright notice (why), but i still
> doubt that moocow did the debian packaging.

fixed

>  also config.* and some other files seem to have different copyright holders

Hopefully fixed. If someone could have look, that be nice, as this is
the most tedious (I find) and probably rather error-prone part. 

I was told on #debian-devel, that auto-generated files such as
Makefile.in (generated by autotools) are not required to be listed in
debian/copyright. So I left them out. Is that compliant with the
practice of pkg-multimedia?

> debian/patches/add-meta-file.patch:
>  this patch is actually unneeded.
>  you could simply put the pdstring-meta.pd into debian/ and install it
> directly from there
>  btw, you could also use debian/install to install the file, rather than
> adding a dh_override

Converted from patch to a simple debian/install command.

> debian/README.Debian
>  quite a long line :-)
>  more important, i cannot load pdstring following your advice in
> README.Debian: [declare -stdlib extra/pdstring] will do nothing (on
> reload), only [declare -lib pdstring] helps

How did you test? The '-lib' flag searches relative to your patch,
whereas '-stdlib' searches relative to pd. You only can correctly test
it by effectively installing the package and run pd (/usr/bin/pd). 

However, it turned out, that the advice was not complete, since the
library also contains abstractions, which are not found with only
'-stdlib extra/pdstring'. The full and correct declaration is:

[declare -stdlib extra/pdstring -stdpath extra/pdstring]

Yeah, that's a lot for loading only a library, but unfortunately that is
how it currently works in Pd.

> debian/watch
>  it seems that the name is not mangled correctly, i get
> <snip>
> Newest version on remote site is 0.10-2, local version is 0.10.2
> pd-pdstring: remote site does not even have current version
> </snip>
>  try something like:
>  opts="uversionmangle=s/-/./"

Thanks for the hint.
With this I get: 
 uscan warning: malformed opts=... in watchfile, skipping line:

I'll look later into that.

Roman