Hi Alexandru,
On 2024-10-15 18:02:10, Alexandru Mihail wrote:
I'd like to request an upload of the psrecord NEW package
( https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/packages/python-psrecord ) as I
don't have uploading rights. This closes #1075810. It's lintian OK and
the latest upstream version.
thanks for working on this new package. I reviewed your work and have
the following remarks:
Package name
============
I saw that you started with psrecord as source package name and tijuca
suggested to use python-psrecord in [0]. After looking into the package,
my personal preference is to switch back to psrecord as source package
name since in my view the main task of the package is to provide a
psrecord executable and I consider the fact that it is written in Python
an implementation detail. This is basically the situation mentioned by
stefanor in [1]. Therefore my proposal is to use psrecord for both the
source and the binary package name.
I understand that this is an unfortunate situation for you since one
person suggests to do A and another person suggests to do B. Therefore I
propose to wait a bit and see what other people think about this. More
opinions are much appreciated - in particular in view of recent
discussions about namespacing Python packages.
Packaging details
=================
branch layout
-------------
The team policy specifies branch name conventions [2]. According to this
policy the branch containing the upstream source should be called
"upstream". Actually used is "upstream/latest" (also note that the
presently used upstream branch does not match the branch specified in
d/gbp.conf).
d/control
---------
a) The present code fails to build in a clean build environment because
the following build dependencies are missing:
- python3-psutil
- help2man
b) The "Provides" field should be removed (cf. [3]).
d/rules
-------
a) The override_dh_auto_build target is unnecessary and can be removed.
b) The "ifeq ($(filter nodoc,$(DEB_BUILD_PROFILES)),)" block is empty
and can thus be removed.
c) When using the package clean-up validation as described on [4], I get
the following diff
1c1
< /<<PKGBUILDDIR>> directory 300
---
> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>> directory 320
31a32
> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/psrecord.egg-info directory 40
Fixing this requires replacing
rm -rf psrecord.egg-info/SOURCES.txt
by
rm -rf psrecord.egg-info
in the override_dh_auto_clean target.
d) execute_before_dh_installman target:
This assumes that the package being built is installed in the build
environment (uses /usr/bin/psrecord). What would work is using
"$(CURDIR)/debian/psrecord/usr/bin/psrecord" instead. But this requires
PYTHONPATH to be set properly, e. g. by adding
export PYTHONPATH=$(shell pybuild --print build_dir -i python3)
It is also nicer and less error-prone to avoid a hardcoded version in
the help2man call. You can set it at runtime, e. g. by adding
VERSION=$(shell dpkg-parsechangelog -S version)
and use the VERSION variable in the help2man version string.
e) If you generate the manpage during the build, it is better to remove
the static version from d/psrecord.1. Otherwise potential future changes
between the provided and the generated version will again result in
package clean-up validation issues.
d/copyright
-----------
a) According to [5], the Upstream-Contact "[m]ay be free-form text, but
by convention will usually be written as a list of RFC5322 addresses or
URIs." Following this convention means using
Upstream-Contact: Thomas Robitaille <thomas.robitai...@gmail.com>
(note the angle brackets).
b) I see slight deviations from the upstream license file for the
"Files: *" stanza. It should be:
Copyright: 2013, Thomas P. Robitaille
In the "License: BSD-2-clause" stanza, the "All rights reserved." line
is missing.
c) There is no "Files: debian/*" stanza.
[0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2024/08/msg00049.html
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2024/10/msg00093.html
[2]
https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/blob/master/policy.rst#branch-names
[3]
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#virtual-packages-provides
[4] https://wiki.debian.org/sbuild#Validate_package_cleanup
[5] https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0
Also, to anyone with admin powers, please nuke
https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/packages/psrecord as this was
migrated to the new location following discussions about naming
conventions. it's empty.
I cannot help with this part. But in view of the open discussion about
the package name, it might be prudent to wait until this issue has been
settled.
If you have questions concerning anything mentioned above, do not
hesitate to ask.
Best regards,
Peter
