Two questions on package quality
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
linux.debian.devel only
 
Advanced search
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

linux.debian.devel Profileā€¦
 Up
Two questions on package quality         


Author: Nikita V. Youshchenko
Date: Dec 17, 2006 07:50

Hello people.

I was asked to sponsor a package upload.
I am in doubt on tho following issues, so I/m asking debian-devel for
comments.

1. Upstream does not provide a manual page for the binary. Packager decided
to add binary-without-manpage to lintian override file, and Tag:
no-manual-for-binary to linda override file.

My questions are:

- Is having a manual page for each binary inside package a mandatory
requirement these days?

- If binary without manpage is allowed, then what of following 3 statements
is true:
(1) binary-without-manpage/no-manual-for-binary should be added, to stop
complains from lintian/linda,
(2) binary-without-manpage/no-manual-for-binary should not be added, so
linda/lintian complains remind that manual page should be written one day,
(3) or it really does not matter, and I should sign the upload regardless
of this issue?
Show full article (1.49Kb)
5 Comments
Re: Two questions on package quality         


Author: Bart Martens
Date: Dec 17, 2006 09:00

On Sun, 2006-12-17 at 09:48 +0300, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> Hello people.
>
> I was asked to sponsor a package upload.
> I am in doubt on tho following issues, so I/m asking debian-devel for
> comments.
>
>
> 1. Upstream does not provide a manual page for the binary. Packager decided
> to add binary-without-manpage to lintian override file, and Tag:
> no-manual-for-binary to linda override file.
>
> My questions are:
>
> - Is having a manual page for each binary inside package a mandatory
> requirement these days?
Show full article (2.43Kb)
no comments
Re: Two questions on package quality         


Author: Thomas Viehmann
Date: Dec 17, 2006 10:10

Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> (2) binary-without-manpage/no-manual-for-binary should not be added, so
> linda/lintian complains remind that manual page should be written one day,
Lintian overrides are intended for false positives. Unsing them to
suppress reports of valid packaging problems is completely frivolous and
degrades Debian's overall quality.
> So .orig.tar.gz got repackaged, and now it differs from upstream.
> Should then 'upstream' version string be changed from x.y.z to
> x.y.z.debian? Or not? Or it does not matter?
If you change the orig.tar.gz, the 'upstream' version should indicate
that. You'd probally want to check with the best packaging practices
suggested by the Developer's Reference[1].

Kind regards

T.

1.
http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging-practices.en.html#s-repackagedorigtargz

--
Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/
Show full article (1.04Kb)
no comments
Re: Two questions on package quality         


Author: Russ Allbery
Date: Dec 17, 2006 20:30

Nikita V Youshchenko debian.org> writes:
> 1. Upstream does not provide a manual page for the binary. Packager
> decided to add binary-without-manpage to lintian override file, and Tag:
> no-manual-for-binary to linda override file.

Please don't do this. The lintian tag can be used by others who have more
time to find all binaries without man pages and contribute man pages for
them, and overriding it defeats that purpose.

An override should only be used when what lintian is finding really isn't
a bug for reasons that lintian can't know about (for example, if the man
page is provided by some other package on which that package depends). If
the bug is present and fixing it is just hard, please leave the lintian
message there so that it's documented.
> My questions are:
> - Is having a manual page for each binary inside package a mandatory
> requirement these days?

No, it's not mandatory, it's just a bug.
> 2. Upstream tarball contains ttf-dejavu font. Linda found that and
> complained.

Why?
Show full article (1.90Kb)
1 Comment
Re: Two questions on package quality         


Author: Gunnar Wolf
Date: Dec 22, 2006 04:50

Nikita V. Youshchenko dijo [Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 09:48:02AM +0300]:
> Hello people.
>
> I was asked to sponsor a package upload.
> I am in doubt on tho following issues, so I/m asking debian-devel for
> comments.
>
>
> 1. Upstream does not provide a manual page for the binary. Packager decided
> to add binary-without-manpage to lintian override file, and Tag:
> no-manual-for-binary to linda override file.
>
> My questions are:
>
> - Is having a manual page for each binary inside package a mandatory
> requirement these days?
Show full article (2.05Kb)
no comments
Re: Two questions on package quality         


Author: Gunnar Wolf
Date: Dec 22, 2006 04:50

Russ Allbery dijo [Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 11:20:37AM -0800]:
>> 2. Upstream tarball contains ttf-dejavu font. Linda found that and
>> complained.
>
> Why?
>
> Sure, duplication of code is a bit annoying, but ttf-dejavu appears to be
> a free font, so it doesn't hurt anything that the upstream tarball
> contains it. The installed *package* shouldn't duplicate the font and
> should instead just depend on the font package it needs (or possibly not
> even depend -- if it's only accessing the font via X, it should only
> recommend and allow for the possibility that there's an X font server
> providing the font). But there's no harm that I can see in leaving the
> font in the upstream tarball unless it's under some other non-DFSG-free
> license, and you want to avoid repackaging the upstream...
Show full article (1.30Kb)
no comments