2009/11/30 Olly Betts <o...@survex.com> > Mostly this looks good, but a deeper inspection found a few issues (don't > be scared by the length of this mail - I've tried to provide plenty of > details):
I can't be scared so easily =) > http://code.google.com/p/djapian/ seems to indicate djapian 2.3 requires > django 1.1 and Xapian 1.0.7. I don't know if those are actually minimum > requirements (there weren't any changes in xapian-core or the Xapian python > bindings in 1.0.7 which seem a likely explanation) or just what upstream > have tested with, but unless you know better it's probably as well to > follow them. Neither requirement is a problem for Debian unstable, or > for anyone backporting to lenny (lenny has Xapian 1.0.7 and a backported > version of django 1.1). Django 1.0 and xapian 1.0.5 are left from previous djapian version. Fixed. > > This line in debian/rules doesn't seem to be used or needed: > PKG = $(shell dh_listpackages) I don't remember now where it came from... Suspecting `dh_make`. Fixed. > What's the origin of the licence boilerplate in debian/copyright? The > upstream sources don't have (C) headers on any of the source files it > appears - the only mention of a licence seems to be in PKG-INFO: > > Author: Alex Koshelev, Rafael "SDM" Sierra > [...] > License: New BSD License > > Particularly, I don't see where the "django-tagging" used for the org name > in the third clause comes from. Google suggests it is an unrelated django > application - is this just a left-over from copying the licence text from > somewhere? Yes, it's copypaste from my python-django-tagging effort. Fixed. > Also, the copyright statements must have year(s), or the ftpmasters will > reject the package: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/03/msg00023.html I use years of first/last commit from Subversion repository. Can it be considered as a reliable source? Should I mention that source somehow? > Ideally upstream would actually document their licence more explicitly, > and it would be good to politely point out that it would help their users > to do so, but debian/copyright certainly shouldn't invent information > but rather document when and how it was obtained - see "License II" here: > http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html I have filed issue in upstream bug tracker: http://code.google.com/p/djapian/issues/detail?id=99 Beside, I have requested licensing information from one of developers via email. > You might want to consider using the draft "machine-readable > debian/copyright" format to save yourself work later. It seems likely > this will be adopted, and at some point it would probably then become > required: > http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ Done. Everything must be machine-readable. Kill all humans. > How you licence the Debian packaging is up to you, but GPLv3 seems an > odd choice for a BSD python package wrapping a GPLv2+ library. Using > a stricter licence than Djapian's means that the Djapian developers > (or indeed the Xapian developers) can't just incorporate any changes from > your packaging which they find useful. Ok. I will switch the licence. > debian/changelog claims "Non-maintainer upload" and "-0.1" indeed indicates > this as such, which is wrong. You would be the maintainer of this as a > sponsored upload, so the correct Debian version would be "2.3-1" (in > this case). > > Also "new upstream version" is more conventional than "Imported Upstream > version 2.3" - see: > http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/pkgs.html#changelog-entries It's message from git-import-orig. I thought it's ok to leave it as is. Fixed. > And the "Closes: #528247" really belongs in the section for the version > which actually gets uploaded, as that's the one which actually means the > ITP bug can be closed. May be changelog should contain only one entry: 'Initial release (Closes: #528247)'. Is it correct? > Some of the phrasing in the description seems a bit awkward - I think the > description would read better as something like (assuming I haven't > inadvertently changed the intended meaning): > > Description: Search API for Django using Xapian > Djapian provides full-text search in your Django project. > . > Most features are provided by the Xapian library. Djapian effectively > serves as a Django-compatible adaptor for Xapian. > . > Djapian's features include: > [...] It was excerpt from http://code.google.com/p/djapian/. English is not native nither for me nor for Djapian developers, so awkwardness is possible. Fixed as you suggested. > Has your GPG key been signed by anyone? I found the key on > keyserver.ubuntu.com but only self-signed. If you might want to become a > DM or DD in the future, you'll need to get it signed by existing DDs - > at least one for DM, and at least two for DD. I'll try to arrange it. But I doubt it'll be easy one. The new package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/python-django-djapian - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/python-django-djapian/python-django-djapian_2.3-1.dsc Regards, Mikhail -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
