first package: pd-wiimote

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Sep 2, 2010, at 4:06 AM, Roman Haefeli wrote:

> On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 09:38 +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 01:16:03 (CEST), Roman Haefeli wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> I checked in my first package. I tried to follow - where possible  
>>> - very
>>> closely to pd-motex, which has been already uploaded.
>>> I would be glad if someone could have a look at it.
>>>
>>> FYI: It is using what I believe is called short-form dh.
>>
>> indeed, it is.
>>
>> I've taken a quick look at the package,
>> it's a really small package and
>> rather easy to review.
>>
>> Packagingwise, I think it is fine, but I'm umcomfortable with the two
>> patches. First, please use the patch metadata as described in
>> http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/.
>>
>> But as for the actual patches, I'm rather uncomfortable with
>> them. The add-license patch adds the complete text of the GPL. I'm  
>> not
>> sure how the ftpteam thinks about it, but to me it feels very
>> strange. Is upstream aware of the problem, can't they just reissue  
>> the
>> tarball with the complete license text? Moreover, quoting the part  
>> "How
>> to Apply These Term to Your New Programs" is usually also helpful.
>>
>> I'd be more comfortable if the GPL text was just included in debian/,
>> read, as non-patch, but still, I really think this file should be  
>> part
>> of the orig.tar.gz.
>
> The reason why I added the LICENSE file in the first place is because
> the Makefile is hardcoded to install it. Probably I shouldn't have  
> done
> it as a patch. But then again in the thread about pd-motex people  
> agreed
> that it would be better to create a symlink to the respective license
> in /usr/share/common-licenses/.
> So actually, I could remove "install LICENSE" line in the Makefile  
> which
> makes the add-license.patch obsolete  and let debian/rules do the
> symlink and the result will be the same. What do you think?
>
>> So another approach would be to repackage the
>> tarball to just include the COPYING file. While we are at it, we  
>> could
>> also use the new Makefile and get rid of the other patch.
>
> Instead of using a quilt patch should I simply replace the Makefile  
> with
> the new one and check that into the master branch?
>
> Roman


Roman,

Since you now have upstream commit access, I would fix the Makefile  
and LICENSE.txt problems in the pure-data SVN, then once that's  
working, we can release a tarball on the pure-data sourceforge page.   
Then the debian packaging becomes much simpler, like the other Pd  
packages based on this Makefile template (pd-motex, pd-pmpd, etc).

.hc


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

As we enjoy great advantages from inventions of others, we should be  
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and  
this we should do freely and generously.         - Benjamin Franklin