On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 12:40:53PM +0200, Christoph Haas wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 04:51:51PM +0530, Kumar Appaiah wrote: > > Sorry for going on and on! > > Don't worry. We'll be done complaining about the package soon. ;)
I am sure about that! :-) > > What I have done is, I have prepended some info in the README with > > install info, saying that this is part of the original package and not > > of relevance to Debian users, as they already have it installed. > > You are actually patching the upstream's README file. I personally do > not recommend changing upstream's files. Imagine what happens when the > upstream releases a new version. You would then have to patch the new > file, too. > > My suggestions is to not use/install the README file at all. It does not > contain that much useful information anyway. > > - it needs python2.1 -> dependencies > - there's documentation in... -> people look for docs in /usr/share/doc > anyway > - license -> copyright file It's gone now. However, I haven't included any README.Debian, since the documentation shown by apt-cache show is quite alright in my view. > Next... I believe that the build dependencies (debian/control) also need > an entry for "python2.4-dev". And since the package is architecture > independent it may be good to use 'Build-Depends-Indep:' instead of > 'Build-Depends:'. Done. > Another detail... you might extend the description (debian/control) > of the python2.(3|4)-goopy binary packages to read something like > "This package provides the modules for Python 2.4". Done that as well. > > Then, I generate an HTML file documenting all functions available > > using pydoc2.[34] (appropriate version), and install that into the > > docs directory using dh_installdocs. Is this OK? > > Nice idea. I haven't packaged that many Python modules before. So I > can't say if this is the common practise. But I think you'll say it's OK here, since Google has provided a pydoc'ed file on their website: http://goog-goopy.sourceforge.net/goopy.functional.html So, I thought it'd make more sense generating it from the source, rather than copy it. If Python 2.5 has spanking changes to pydoc, might as well have them, right? > After building the package (preferably in "pbuilder") you should run > lintian and linda on it. I get a couple of warnings and error messages > there. Sorry, I hadn't tried pbuilder earlier. I tried it now, and I must say that the New maintainer guide must give more importance to this; it's really great! As for the Build-Depends-Indep, I checked out the problem myself using pbuilder , and added python2.4-dev. Finally, I have eliminated all lintian warnings but one; outdated standards version! I think I am running the latest dh_make + debhelpers, and from what I gather from the lintian info site, this isn't too serious, is it? linda doesn't seem to complain. So, if you tell me what final touches are needed, I can make them quickly. Many thanks. I just can't wait to see my package get into Debian (and show off to my Debian loving friends!) Kumar -- Kumar Appaiah, 462, Jamuna Hostel, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai - 600 036
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
