Sponsorship/Review for package "karlyriceditor"

[Martin Steghöfer]

Hi IOhannes!

Thanks a lot for the review! It really helps a lot!


El 20/05/14 12:36, "IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU)" ha escrit:
> your Vcs: cool that you are using git.
> but your workflow seems to be somewhat non-standard (only tracking
> debian/ in git). we usually track the entire package in git, which
> includes pristine-tarballs from upstream [1].
> this eases integration with gbp a lot.
I tried it once, following the instructions on 
https://wiki.debian.org/PackagingWithGit, but decided against using it. 
It didn't simplify my work, but instead cluttered up my repository with 
the upstream source files. I don't get the point of having upstream 
files in the repository, if you're not allowed to touch them directly 
(only via patches).

Anyway, I can adopt the more "standardized" workflow, if it helps the 
collaboration with others. Will look into it.

> debian/control:
> - Vcs-Stanzas:
>   seem to be missing (most likely because you would like to move the
> packaging to a more "debian" repo?)
I simply didn't use a repo yet, when I created the debian/control file. 
Done: 
https://github.com/martin-steghoefer/debian-karlyriceditor/commit/abfbc647

What would be a "more 'debian' repo"? Just using the workflow mentioned 
on https://wiki.debian.org/PackagingWithGit? Or another repo host?

> - Description:
>   all those acronyms don't mean anything to me; also "support for foo
>   and bar specifics" sounds weird to me. should that read "supports
>   formats foo and bar"?
This was mainly taken from upstream. Tried to improve the readability: 
https://github.com/martin-steghoefer/debian-karlyriceditor/commit/bdf960a4

> - Depends:
>   are all those manual dependencies really needed? why can't they be
>   calculated from by ${shlibs:Depends}
You are right, they can! I underestimated the power of 
${shlibs:Depends}. Removed the explicit dependencies: 
https://github.com/martin-steghoefer/debian-karlyriceditor/commit/bf7d1168

> debian/changelog:
> usually debian/changelog for an initial upload will only contain a
> single line: "* Initial release (Closes: #692968)"
> the purpose of this changelog is to report the changes in the packaging
> with regard to the last upload. since there is none, you merge all those
> changes into "initial packaging".
> also, changelog entries should only document versions uploaded to debian.
> since 1.3-1 never made it, there is no use documenting it.
I understand, makes sense. Reduced the changelog: 
https://github.com/martin-steghoefer/debian-karlyriceditor/commit/a21356c5

> debian/rules:
> there's some cruft involved here, to include upstream's changelog.
> check out dh_installchangelogs.
I had tried that before, but failed. The problem was that the filename 
of the upstream changelog was still in the "docs" file. Removed it: 
https://github.com/martin-steghoefer/debian-karlyriceditor/commit/aa0df552

> debian/copyright:
> - Source:
> the debian/copyright is supposed to not change between upstream-releases
> if there are no changes in the copyrights.
> this means that you should provide a version-independent link to the
> sources, e.g.: http://sourceforge.net/projects/karlyriceditor/files
Done: 
https://github.com/martin-steghoefer/debian-karlyriceditor/commit/c13d1959

> - License:
> according to `licensecheck` all files (with the exception of
> ./build-*.sh and ./nsis/create_installer.sh which do not have a license
> boilerplate) are really GPL-3+
> you claim that all files are copyright "2003-2005 James Klicman
> <james at klicman.org>", of whom i cannot find any references in any file
> (but debian/copyright). this may indicate that you did some extra research.
> however, all files (excluding those mentioned above) have an explicit
> copyright notice "2009-2013 George Yunaev". some have an additional
> copyright "2009-2010 Daniel Roggen".
Really awkward mistake. That information is from another project and got 
mixed up. Corrected it (same commit): 
https://github.com/martin-steghoefer/debian-karlyriceditor/commit/c13d1959

> i find it easier to read if all the license-texts are collected at the
> end of debian/copyright.
> something like
> <snip>
> Files: *
> Copyright: 2000-2001, John Doe
> License: foo
>
> Files: debian/*
> Copyright: 2042, Mimi Minus
> License: foo
>
> License: foo
>   this is a foo license...
> </snip>
True that. Didn't know this was allowed. Done (same commit): 
https://github.com/martin-steghoefer/debian-karlyriceditor/commit/c13d1959

> finally:
> the package FTBFS in a pristine sid environment (using
> pbuilder/git-buildpackage).
> most likely the package is needs some work for libav10.
Exactly, it was libav10. The last time I worked on the package, it was 
still working. But now, after an "apt-get dist-upgrade" it broke. Some 
deprecated functions in Libav that got removed. Patched it: 
https://github.com/martin-steghoefer/debian-karlyriceditor/commit/7bf48cda
I also patched other deprecated functions to avoid breakage at the next 
Libav update: 
https://github.com/martin-steghoefer/debian-karlyriceditor/commit/b84ce255


Thanks again for your review! It really pushed the package! Any ideas on 
how to go on now?

New upload to mentors: http://mentors.debian.net/package/karlyriceditor

Cheers,
Martin