Re: [MoM] bandage
Hi Cédric,
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 04:03:42PM +0000, Cédric Lood wrote:
>
> > debian/upstream/metadata
> > I simply pushed a syntax error and extended the authors
> > field which is the one that is actively used on our tasks
> > pages[1]
>
> Thanks for noticing the mistake and fixing it.
You are welcome - that's actually the purpose of MoM.
> I was waiting for the ITP to go through to get the bug#, but I guess
> that is not required, so I pushed it and will fill it in later.
It is perfectly fine (inside the Debian Med team) to start without the
ITP. Its not the generally recommended behaviour but we are talking
about very rarely used packages and we are coordinating here internally
inside the team who cares. So the sense of an ITP to stop somebody else
to do duplicated work is basically void in our case. In case you might
be interested to package a great game from scratch or some basic
library I'd recommend to do the ITP first.
> > debian/copyright
> > I simplified this file and pushed. The general logic is
> > that you start with some kind of general copyright paragraph
> > featuring all files
> > Files: *
> > and afterwards you specify exceptions from this.
>
> Got it.
I've seen the commits and I pushed another fix. We are using some
reserved names (see the URL in the first line of the copyright file).
> > The files is just missing two paragraphs for the used
> > licenses which should specify the location of the full
> > copies of the according licenses. (Pick your favourite
> > package as example how to specify this or ask back here
> > if it might be not clear what I mean.)
>
> I have added them, I wasn't so sure about the GPL2 vs GPL2+ and
> likewise with GPL3 vs. GPL3+. Let me know whether this is correct.
It is the "+" version when the text says "or later".
> For the bandage application files, the headers of the .cpp and .h indicate
> version 3 or later, but for the OGDF files, the headers mention GPL2 or 3.
Ahhh, so my fix was wrong it should then rather be
GPL-2 or GPL-3
I was just checking the text you inserted into d/copyright and did not
really checked the license text.
BTW, OGDF is a third party code copy which is not really a good idea.
I did a search
$ apt-cache search ogdf
libogdf-tulip-4.8-0 - Open Graph Drawing Framework shared library, built for Tulip
libtulip-ogdf-4.8 - Tulip graph library - OGDF runtime
which sounds pretty close. I have no idea what that tulip thingy might
be. Would you please check whether the source package of this package
is containing the same or at least compatible source? You can get it by
$ apt-cache showsrc libtulip-ogdf-4.8 | grep ^Package:
to know in what source package it is and than
$ apt-get source tulip
The name of the maintainer rings some bell in my mind since he is also a
member of the Debian Science team. May be this stuff might make sense
in Debian Science. In case the code copy of OGDF inside bandage is
something else it might make sense to consider to package it separately
from bandage. Please do some research for the homepage and source that
might be available and I'll check what might be the best way to go.
(I'll just leave you this task to learn what tasks belong to proper
package maintenance. I'm not sure what we decide to for the final
bandage package.)
> > debian/watch
> > Please remove all commented lines except the one for Github
> > releases and make this point to
> > https://github.com/rrwick/Bandage/releases
> > Just a hint: The debian/watch file is the first thing I'm
> > fixing to get the upstream source right via uscan to see
> > whether it can correctly download the source.
>
> Thanks for the hint.
Well, you deleted a bit to much. The template contained some regular
expression after this URL. That is needed. Please restore the rest of
the line and replace "PREFIX" by the 'v' upstream is using. As a
general rule the watch file expression should match the download URL.
You can see this in your browser. The version number should be a
regular expression. You can read more about watch files in Debian
Wiki[1]. The template in SVN is just assembling the possible watch file
entries to enable straightforward access without consulting the Wiki.
:-P
> > debian/rules
> > After you have fixed everything (specifically the changelog
> > file) you can try to build the package. You should read the
> > file README.md from upstream how to build. It requires qmake
> > which you need to specify in debian/control as a Build-Depends.
>
> Alright, that is next on my list then.
Fine.
> > Hope these hints are helpful and enable you to continue easily. Feel
> > free to ask here about any detail that might remain unclear.
>
> Very useful, thanks a lot for the feedback!
You are welcome as said above. I'm happy that it was helpful.
Kind regards
Andreas.
[1] https://wiki.debian.org/debian/watch
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: