Hi again Philip,
I've added the necessary symbols files and uploaded ipp-crypto again for
review.
Regards,
Colin
On 09/07/2024 19:35, Phil Wyett wrote:
Colin,
Preamble...
Thanks for taking time to create this package and your contribution to Debian.
The below review is for assistance. It is offered to help submitters of
packages to Debian mentors improve their packages prior to possible
sponsorship into Debian. There is no obligation on behalf of the submitter to
make any alterations based upon information provided in the review.
Review...
1. Build: Good
2. Lintian: Issues
W: libcrypto-mb11-dbgsym: debug-file-with-no-debug-symbols
[usr/lib/debug/.build-id/18/8a14e0b7e7adc5e7d6822e18bcba2ae923cdaf.debug]
N:
N: The binary is installed as a detached "debug symbols" ELF file, but it
N: does not appear to have debug information associated with it.
N:
N: A common cause is not passing -g to GCC when compiling.
N:
N: Implementation detail: Lintian checks for the ".debug_line" and the
N: ".debug_str" sections. If either of these are present, the binary is
N: assumed to contain debug information.
N:
N: Please refer to Bug#668437 for details.
N:
N: Visibility: warning
N: Show-Always: no
N: Check: binaries/debug-symbols/detached
N:
N:
I: libippcp11-dbgsym: file-references-package-build-path [usr/lib/debug/.build-
id/62/4c868bcee2c418e5f79d9ee700768b60833b85.debug]
N:
N: The listed file or maintainer script appears to reference the build path
N: used to build the package as specified in the Build-Path field of the
N: .buildinfo file.
N:
N: This is likely to cause the package to be unreproducible, but it may also
N: indicate that the package will not work correctly outside of the
N: maintainer's own system.
N:
N: Please note that this tag will not appear unless the .buildinfo file
N: contains a Build-Path field. That field is optional. You may have to set
N: DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=buildinfo=+path or use
N: --buildinfo-option=--always-include-path with dpkg-buildpackage when
N: building.
N:
N: Please refer to https://reproducible-builds.org/,
N: https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/BuildinfoFiles, and the
N: dpkg-genbuildinfo(1) manual page for details.
N:
N: Visibility: info
N: Show-Always: no
N: Check: files/contents
N:
N:
I: libcrypto-mb11: no-symbols-control-file usr/lib/x86_64-linux-
gnu/libcrypto_mb.so.11.11
N:
N: Although the package includes a shared library, the package does not have
N: a symbols control file.
N:
N: dpkg can use symbols files in order to generate more accurate library
N: dependencies for applications, based on the symbols from the library that
N: are actually used by the application.
N:
N: Please refer to the dpkg-gensymbols(1) manual page and
N: https://wiki.debian.org/UsingSymbolsFiles for details.
N:
N: Visibility: info
N: Show-Always: no
N: Check: debian/shlibs
N:
N:
I: libippcp11: no-symbols-control-file usr/lib/x86_64-linux-
gnu/libippcp.so.11.11
N:
I: libippcp11: spelling-error-in-description funtions functions
N:
N: Lintian found a spelling error in the package description. Lintian has a
N: list of common misspellings that it looks for. It does not have a
N: dictionary like a spelling checker does. It is particularly picky about
N: spelling and capitalization in package descriptions since they're very
N: visible to end users.
N:
N: Visibility: info
N: Show-Always: no
N: Check: fields/description
3. Licenses (lrc): Good
4. Watch file (uscan --force-download): Good
5. Build Twice (sudo pbuilder build --twice <package>.dsc): Good
6. Reproducible builds (reporotest)[1]: Good
7. Install (No previous installs): Good
8. Upgrade (Over previous installs if any): N/A
Summary...
I hope you resolve the issues with the 'debian' folder and copyright holder
issues can be resolved soon, but I do not see it as a blocker, but only a Debian
Developer (DD) can give a final verdict.
There are still a few lintian issues that I believe need to be addressed before
a Debian Developer (DD) will sponsor, but again, only a DD can have the final
decision.
[1] https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/Howto#Newer_method
Regards
Phil
On Tue, 2024-07-09 at 17:28 +0100, Colin King (gmail) wrote:
Hi Phil,
I re-uploaded the ipp-crypto package with the changes you requested
except for the copyright holder changes on the debian directory as
progress on this stage is stuck pending an agreement with the current
copyright holder.
I hope the changes are OK,
Colin
On 28/06/2024 11:04, Phil Wyett wrote:
Hi Colin,
Preamble...
Thanks for taking time to create this package and your contribution to Debian.
The below review is for assistance. It is offered to help submitters of
packages to Debian mentors improve their packages prior to possible
sponsorship into Debian. There is no obligation on behalf of the subitter to
make any alterations based upon information provided in the review.
Review...
1. Build: Good
2. Lintian: Warnings / Information
W: ipp-crypto source: debian-rules-sets-DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS [debian/rules:5]
N:
N: The debian/rules file sets the DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS variable, which will
N: override any user-specified build profile.
N:
N: Please replace with DEB_BUILD_MAINT_OPTIONS.
N:
N: Please refer to the dpkg-buildflags(1) manual page for details.
N:
N: Visibility: warning
N: Show-Always: no
N: Check: debian/rules
Note: Something to look at and consider.
W: ipp-crypto changes: distribution-and-changes-mismatch unstable sid
N:
N: The Distribution in the .changes file indicates that packages should be
N: installed into one distribution (suite), but the distribution in the
N: Changes field copied from debian/changelog indicates that a different
N: distribution was intended.
N:
N: This is an easy mistake to make when invoking "sbuild ... foo.dsc".
N: Double-check the -d option if using sbuild in this way.
N:
N: Please refer to Bug#542747 and Bug#529281 for details.
N:
N: Visibility: warning
N: Show-Always: no
N: Check: fields/distribution
Note:
In 'debian/changelog' the package should be targetting 'unstable' and not 'sid.
This one requires being rectified.
See: Additional A.
I: libcrypto-mb-dev: extended-description-is-probably-too-short
N:
N: The extended description (the lines after the first line of the
N: "Description:" field) is only one or two lines long. The extended
N: description should provide a user with enough information to decide
N: whether they want to install this package, what it contains, and how it
N: compares to similar packages. One or two lines is normally not enough to
N: do this.
N:
N: Please refer to General guidelines for package descriptions (Section
N: 6.2.1) in the Debian Developer's Reference and The long description
N: (Section 6.2.3) in the Debian Developer's Reference for details.
N:
N: Visibility: info
N: Show-Always: no
N: Check: fields/description
Note:
You may wish to extend this a little.
3. Licenses: Issues
d/copyright | licensecheck
Apache-2.0 |
Expat tools/ipp_custom_library_tool_python/CLT_license_MIT.txt
Apache-2.0 |
Expat tools/ipp_custom_library_tool_python/gui/app.py
Apache-2.0 |
Expat tools/ipp_custom_library_tool_python/gui/controller.py
Apache-2.0 |
Expat tools/ipp_custom_library_tool_python/gui/custom_functions_panel
.py
Apache-2.0 |
Expat tools/ipp_custom_library_tool_python/gui/selection_panel.py
Apache-2.0 |
Expat tools/ipp_custom_library_tool_python/gui/settings_panel.py
Apache-2.0 | Expat tools/ipp_custom_library_tool_python/main.py
Apache-2.0 |
Expat tools/ipp_custom_library_tool_python/tests/functions_tests.py
Apache-2.0 |
Expat tools/ipp_custom_library_tool_python/tests/utils.py
Apache-2.0 |
Expat tools/ipp_custom_library_tool_python/tool/core.py
Apache-2.0 |
Expat tools/ipp_custom_library_tool_python/tool/generators.py
Apache-2.0 |
Expat tools/ipp_custom_library_tool_python/tool/generators_utils.py
Apache-2.0 |
Expat tools/ipp_custom_library_tool_python/tool/package.py
Apache-2.0 |
Expat tools/ipp_custom_library_tool_python/tool/utils.py
The check is wrong here. Look at the files and you will they all are MIT
license.
4. Build Twice (sudo pbuilder build --twice <package>.dsc): Good
5. Install (No previous installs): Good
6. Upgrade (Over previous installs if any): N/A
Additional...
A. If you wished to ask the copyright holder listed for the 'debian' directory
to allow relicensing under the main Apache-2.0 license of the package.
Regards
Phil
