On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 17:39 +0200, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 05:19:15PM +0200, Fabrizio Regalli wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 15:02 +0200, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> > > Here is my review:
> > >
> > > * Files in pristine-tar are wrongly named
> > >
> > > Trying to build the package with `git-buildpackage
> > > --git-pristine-tar` fails with:
> > >
> > > pristine-tar: git show
> > > refs/heads/pristine-tar:cookie-monster_1.0.5.orig.tar.gz.delta failed
> > >
> > > Indeed. The files are currently named
> > > `cookie-monster_1.0.5.tar.gz.{delta,id}`.
>
> This one is indeed fixed.Right. > > > > * dpkg-source: error: unrepresentable changes to source > > > > > > As upstream does not ship .tar.gz (or .tar.bz2 for that matter) that > > > Debian could directly use, we need to create a .orig.tar.gz from > > > upstream source. > > > > > > So we are free to fiddle with upstream source in order to get the > > > files as close as we would like upstream to ship them. I then > > > strongly advocate to have a .orig.tar.gz where cookiemonster.jar > > > is unpacked. > > > > > > That will also remove the useless patch in debian/patches and ease > > > future reviews of upstream changes > > > > Right. I started now from scratch and these problems are solved. > > This one is not, IMHO. > > 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? > > > > * 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) > > > * 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) Cheers, Fabrizio.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
