Neil Williams <codehelp <at> debian.org> writes: > > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 3.99.2-1 > > of my package "libitpp". > > http://packages.qa.debian.org/libi/libitpp.html > > When asking for a sponsor, please mention whether the package already > exists in Debian - i.e. whether you have had a sponsor who is now busy > etc.
OK, so this is the last time I rely on the template in Mentors. Anyway, I thought the "updated" subject line would do, but it's OK. My mentor, Daniel Baumann, has decided to stop sponsoring packages. Therefore, I need someone else to help me out. > > It builds these binary packages: > > libitpp-dev - C++ library for signal processing and communication > > libitpp6 - C++ library for signal processing and communication > > (I wish the mentors template would require the long description in RFS > emails.) > > A -dbg package needs to be provided. > (-dbg packages are likely to become mandatory by Lenny.) Will look into this. > There is 500kb of source in the doc/ directory and probably more by the > time the generated HTML docs are installed - more than enough to > warrant a -doc package too. Ah, so here's the trouble. I did _exactly_ that, but my previous sponsor told me not to do it, since he felt 500 kb didn't warrant a new package, and that the dev package is almost useless without the docs. But if you insist, so be it. > With these in place, you can tweak the short descriptions to indicate > what is contained in each package by only mentioning "C++ library" for > libitpp6 and adding a suffix of (development files) (debug files) > (documentation) or something along those lines. Compare with libqof1: I would request you to elaborate on this. Do you just mean to explain separation of packages into docs, dev and dbg? > Some of the content from the Features list at > http://itpp.sourceforge.net/ needs to be summarised in the > long description - remove the repeated research section: [snip] Will be done. > Shorten the bit about NEWCOM - mention NEWCOM if you have to, otherwise > concentrate on what the library can do, not who might be using it > outside Debian. Accepted. > These are trivial to fix: > > dpkg-source: warning: file debian/copyright has no final newline (either original or modified version) > dpkg-source: warning: file debian/itpp-config.1 has no final newline (either original or modified version) > dpkg-source: warning: file debian/changelog has no final newline (either original or modified version) > dpkg-source: warning: file debian/libitpp6.docs has no final newline (either original or modified version) > dpkg-source: warning: file debian/watch has no final newline (either original or modified version) > dpkg-source: warning: file debian/control has no final newline (either original or modified version) > dpkg-source: warning: file debian/libitpp-dev.manpages has no final newline (either original or > modified version) Fine. > Now to the serious stuff: [snip] > 2 RC bugs, a dependency on an outdated compiler and a quiet/dead > upstream have been more than enough to have even a popular package > removed from a release before now - if that happens to atlas, your > package will be removed too (especially as libitpp2 only has 6 popcon > users). > > This package has a large dependency tree (127MB of archives). Libraries > are difficult enough without adding so many dependencies. I was unaware of the fact that atlas suffered from so many deficiencies. However, I guess I can drop dependency on atlas (see http://itpp.sourceforge.net/index.php?wiki=About ), though I'd consult upstream before doing that. > Tell me about yourself - how familiar are you with some of the > dependencies of this package? I am an "end-user" of this package, and not very familiar with the dependencies. Therefore, I didn't see the storm brewing. > I am interested in this package, even though it is clearly outside my > normal remit of embedded development, but I am also concerned about > whether it is wise to encourage a package with such problematic > dependencies. Well, I'll see what I can do. This will mean redoing a lot of old work, and will take some time. I guess I'll do this sometime in the next few days. > > > > The package is lintian clean. > > No, it is not. > > W: libitpp source: debian-rules-ignores-make-clean-error line 35 > W: libitpp source: substvar-source-version-is-deprecated libitpp-dev Got that. > > I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. > > Sorry, not in the current state. I'll get back to you with a better package. Thanks for the inputs. Kumar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
