[Pkg-mono-devel] libanculus-sharp review

[Mirco Bauer]

On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 21:20 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> > And where is the monodoc documentation package? Without it you are
> > pretty clueless when developing an application using that library. As
> > example check the webkit-sharp source package (its in pkg-cli-lib SVN
> > repo).
> 
> Yes, I saw it.
> I didn't add it just because I didn't know I would have to. The CLI Policy is
> apparently missing this point :(.
> I'll see webkit-sharp and act consequently, thanks.

Well, I don't see the point that a packaging policy would require to
have documentation in a package. It's just that upstream in this case
ships already documentation for monodoc in their tarball, so removing it
on purpose doesn't seem to be the best thing to do.

> > > +On Debian systems, the complete text of the GNU General
> > > +Public License v2 can be found in `/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2'.
> > 
> > Inconsistency here, above it says GPL-2+ (notice the +), while this
> > reference is for v2 only.
> 
> Uhm... another DD (for other packages) told me that if I use "GPL-2+", I should
> point to ./GPL (which is GPL-3) -- is that right?

Ok, I added some confusion here, I thought GPL-2 says "2 only" but I
just checked and its 2+, so your reference to GPL-2 was correct.

>  I'm willing to use GPL-3+,
> but can't really say if it's MIT-compatible (truly, I didn't check this at all).

MIT is compatible to everything as there aren't really restrictions
(BSD-style license).

> 
> However, this has been fixed (rev3774)

Feel free to revert that to GPL-2 if you prefere GPL2+ licensing, thats
your decision :)

> > > +/usr/lib/libanculus-sharp/Anculus.Core.dll
> > > +/usr/lib/libanculus-sharp/Anculus.Core.Extended.dll
> > > 
> > 
> > Wrong location, check 3.1.2 of the CLI policy.
> 
> Fixed this with a patch to *.pc.in files, and a quick hack in debian/rules
> (rev3775)

The new locations:
-/usr/lib/libanculus-sharp/Anculus.Gui.dll
-/usr/lib/libanculus-sharp/Anculus.Core.dll
-/usr/lib/libanculus-sharp/Anculus.Core.Extended.dll
+/usr/lib/cli/libanculus-sharp/Anculus.Gui.dll
+/usr/lib/cli/libanculus-sharp/Anculus.Core.dll
+/usr/lib/cli/libanculus-sharp/Anculus.Core.Extended.dll

are still incorrect though. First it should use the "upstream package
name" which seems to be anculus-sharp or just anculus (as the
pkg-config files are called anculus-*.pc) and the ABI version is
missing in the directory name too. That's very important when an ABI
breakage happens, that both versions are installable at the same time
(thus they must use different locations).

> > you should use dh_clifixperms instead.
> 
> I hope you mean in the binary target; done (rev3776)

in binary is ok.

> 
> > The debian/rules file would be much shorter and thus simpler and easier
> > to maintain, if you use dh7 minimalistic style packaging, as example
> > take a look at webkit-sharp.
> 
> I've never used that style, but I've also read the original post about it by
> Joey (probably him, but I may be wrong) on -devel (?). I don't really like
> "blackbox" solutions (i.e. where you don't see what is being done, like cdbs is
> IMHO),

I agree, I don't like blackboxes either, and yes CDBS is such beast.

debhelper uses a different approach though. The main control flow is
still 100% in your debian/rules file, its just that it calls a list of
common dh_* commands automatically for you. I added support that it even
calls all needed dh_*cli* commands automatically in the right order.

(while cdbs moves the main flow into CDBS and you only get some CDBS
hooks to do something and maybe the right hook that you need exists :))

>  and at a quick look on what you've done with webkit-sharp, it seems so
> to me. But, I admit, I haven't looked at it with attention (nor I have done
> `man dh`, which seems to be necessary, since it's used throughout the Makefile).
> If it's not a problem, I prefer to keep it like it is.

I only suggested to switch to dh7-style, if you feel more comfortible
with the conventional debhelper way no problem :)

>  I've also set it back to
> UNRELEASED, since I need to make the monodoc manual package, and I hope I have
> time to read further on dh7 before asking again for a review :)

wise decision :-P

> 
> Thanks for your time,
> David

-- 
Regards,

Mirco 'meebey' Bauer

PGP-Key ID: 0xEEF946C8

FOSS Developer    meebey at meebey.net  http://www.meebey.net/
PEAR Developer    meebey at php.net     http://pear.php.net/
Debian Developer  meebey at debian.org  http://www.debian.org/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 489 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-mono-devel/attachments/20080615/24373180/attachment-0001.pgp