Le dimanche 13 mai 2012 03:43:14, Pau Garcia i Quiles a écrit :
> > - You use tarball-in-tarball approch with a
> > jQuery.jPlayer.2.1.0.source.zip into your
> > jquery-jplayer_2.1.0.orig.tar.gz. I'm not sure this is useful for this
> > simple package : you should just repack upstream to an
> > orig.tar.{gz,bz2}. This is easier for code review and for applying
> > patches.
>
> AFAIK it's not possible to repack a .zip file while preserving
> timestamps, permissions, etc. That's why I'm packaging the .zip inside
> the .orig.tar.gz.
Since you provide a debian/watch file, you should try "uscan --repack" : it
will download your upstream ZIP file and repack it to a correct debian orig.tar
format (default: gz) while preserving timestamp and permission (IIRC).
> I'm using a .tar.gz instead of .tar.bz2 because I'm still providing
> packages for Wt (witty) for Ubuntu Hardy, which uses an old debhelper.
> Since version 3.1.1, Wt depends on JPlayer for the WAudio and WVideo
> classes, therefore I will provide jquery-jplayer backports for Ubuntu
> Hardy.
AFAIK, .tar.{bz2,lzma,xz} support is not linked to debhelper but to dpkg and
archive tools (dak for Debian or soyuz for Ubuntu). But you're right, I don't
think Hardy support dpkg 3.0 source format.
> > - Jplayer.fla file seems to be useless (according to upstream [1] and to
> > your debian/rules). Since this file seems to be a binary proprietary
> > blob (and I don't know any tool in Debian that can edit this file) I
> > think you should strip it from upstream tarball during repack.
>
> Given that I cannot preserve permissions or timestamps, and this file
> (although binary) is the "preferred editable form", not a compiled,
> minified or obfuscated form, I'd rather not repack. The .fla is still
> useful for people who use Adobe CS tools to edit the Flash (the .fla
> is a "project file"), which can be used on Debian via Wine.
I understand that .fla file is useful for people running Adobe tools but it's
really look like a binary blob :) => largely undocumented, no free software
tool in main to edit... You should at least document those facts into
debian/copyright or debian/README.source to ease reviewing of your package by
FTP Masters.
> > - (optional) Maybe you should try Debian source package formats "3.0
> > (quilt)" [2] ?
>
> It's not supported on Ubuntu Hardy. Due to that, and given that there
> are not patches, no multiple upstream tarballs, or anything where
> source format 3.0 would be useful, I can't see a valid reason to
> change from 1.0 to 3.0.
Okay.
> > - (optional) There is also improvement for debhelper handling. I think
> > that you can simplify your debian/rules file [3]
>
> I don't really like the simplified debian/rules formats. Too much
> magic hidden behind convention. I like to see what's going on.
Ack.
Cheers,
--
Damien
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
