RFS: mount-systray
Juan Jesús Ojeda Croissier
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "mount-systray".
* Package name : mount-systray
Version : 0.5.2
Upstream Authors : Roberto Majadas <tele...@openshine.com>, Alvaro
Peña <a...@openshine.com>
* URL : http://launchpad.net/mount-systray
* License : GPL-2 or later
Section : gnome
It builds these binary packages:
mount-systray - Systray applicacion for umount devices easy
The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
- URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mount-systray
- Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
main contrib non-free
- dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mount-systray/mount-systray_0.5.2.dsc
I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.
Kind regards
Juanje Ojeda
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ment...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Didier Raboud
> Dear mentors,
>
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "mount-systray".
>
> * Package name : mount-systray
> Version : 0.5.2
> Upstream Authors : Roberto Majadas <tele...@openshine.com>, Alvaro
> Peña <a...@openshine.com>
> * URL : http://launchpad.net/mount-systray
> * License : GPL-2 or later
> Section : gnome
>
> It builds these binary packages:
> mount-systray - Systray applicacion for umount devices easy
Hi Juan,
in debian/control:
* your short description doesn't sound english. I'd write as something like
"System tray application to mount and unmount devices easily."
* the field XSBC-Original-Maintainer is non-sense for Debian (in Ubuntu, it
mentions the original Debian Maintainer for the package, which _you_ will
be.
* Your Standards version is outdated.
Other things:
* The package was in Ubuntu Jaunty but isn't anymore. Why and why would you
like to include it in Debian now?
* The version numbering is for "native package" without reason.
* You are uploading to "jaunty" which does not exist in Debian.
* Your README.Debian is empty.
Finally, your package seems to be intended to be uploaded to Ubuntu but went
to Debian somehow.
Actually, I don't give any chance for it to be uploaded - read the docs and
correct at least all the above glitches, make it pass lintian -iI and come
back with a fixed package.
Regards,
Didier Raboud
--
Swisslinux.org − Le carrefour GNU/Linux en Suisse −
http://www.swisslinux.org
Juan Jesús Ojeda Croissier
Thanks for your comments, I'll answer you some of them below.
2009/6/24 Didier Raboud <did...@raboud.com>
[...]
> Hi Juan,
>
> in debian/control:
>
> * your short description doesn't sound english. I'd write as something like
> "System tray application to mount and unmount devices easily."
Sorry, it was the one who the previous maintainer put it and I didn't
check it too much. Thanks for the suggestion.
I'll change it and also the extended description.
> * the field XSBC-Original-Maintainer is non-sense for Debian (in Ubuntu, it
> mentions the original Debian Maintainer for the package, which _you_ will
> be.
Well, actually it makes a bit of sense here. This package is not in
Ubuntu, it comes from Guadalinex[1] a Ubuntu derivative distribution
and the original version of this package was created by some people
who are not working right now in this project.
We are maintaining the package and the project as a team (Junta de
Andalucía <packm...@guadalinex.org>) but we like to let the credits
of the original maintainers, as Ubuntu does with Debian.
That's why we use this user-defined field[2].
> * Your Standards version is outdated.
That's true, a bit. It was the good one when I updated the package
some months before, I didn't check again :-/
I'll fix it.
> Other things:
>
> * The package was in Ubuntu Jaunty but isn't anymore. Why and why would you
> like to include it in Debian now?
No, the package has never been in Ubuntu. It's in Guadalinex and now
we try to bring it to Debian and Ubuntu. The control fiel maybe is a
bit Ubunty style and the changelog say Jaunty, but it was just because
is the distribution that Guadalinex is based on, so we need to make
the packages compatibles with Ubuntu Jaunty.
This package is been used for a lot of users in Spain for more than 2
years, so we like to bring it to Debian and Ubuntu, so more people
around the world can use it.
> * The version numbering is for "native package" without reason.
Well, this is a native package, I think. Maybe I'm wrong with the
meaning of that but the sotfware was created for Guadalinex and it
came with the packaging stuff. It not an upstream projects that we're
packaging.
Please, tell me if I'm wrong.
> * You are uploading to "jaunty" which does not exist in Debian.
Sorry, my mistake. I tried to generate our original package on
pbuilder with Debian sid and every was fine, so I decide to try the
mentors system, but I forgot to change the distribution in the
chengelog file :-/
I'll fix it as well. I guess the best idea by now is to put there
"unstable", isn't it?
> * Your README.Debian is empty.
Yes, you are right. I'll take off this from the docs file.
> Finally, your package seems to be intended to be uploaded to Ubuntu but went
> to Debian somehow.
That's what I explain before, It is not in Ubuntu but our distro is
Ubuntu Jaunty derivative, so the packages are for that distro. We try
now to bring this small tool to more people via Debian and Ubuntu.
> Actually, I don't give any chance for it to be uploaded - read the docs and
> correct at least all the above glitches, make it pass lintian -iI and come
> back with a fixed package.
Well. I'l fix those and other small things I found and I'll upload it
again to be reviewed again. Thanks for your time and your comments.
Cheers
[1] http://blogs.gnome.org/juanje/2009/06/22/guadalinex-v6-is-out/
[2] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s5.7
--
Juanje
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
>> * The version numbering is for "native package" without reason.
>
>Well, this is a native package, I think. Maybe I'm wrong with the
>meaning of that but the sotfware was created for Guadalinex and it
>came with the packaging stuff. It not an upstream projects that we're
>packaging.
>Please, tell me if I'm wrong.
You are wrong. :P
To use native packaging instead of normal packaging, the software should be
of virtually no possible use to non-Debian-derived distributions.
If you can think of *any* reason that openSUSE, Fedora, or Gentoo would want
to use the software (albeit with different packaging) you should use normal
(non-native) packaging.
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =.
b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Juan Jesús Ojeda Croissier
> In <135eeb1d0906241156q69c...@mail.gmail.com>, Juan Jesús
> Ojeda Croissier wrote:
> >> * The version numbering is for "native package" without reason.
>
> >Well, this is a native package, I think. Maybe I'm wrong with the
> >meaning of that but the sotfware was created for Guadalinex and it
> >came with the packaging stuff. It not an upstream projects that we're
> >packaging.
> >Please, tell me if I'm wrong.
>
> You are wrong. :P
>
> To use native packaging instead of normal packaging, the software should be
> of virtually no possible use to non-Debian-derived distributions.
>
> If you can think of *any* reason that openSUSE, Fedora, or Gentoo would want
> to use the software (albeit with different packaging) you should use normal
> (non-native) packaging.
Hummm.... So, I wasn't wrong :-P
This software was created for a Debian-derived distribution
(Guadalinex). Maybe it's possible to change the packaging or compile
from the sources, but it wasn't the initial idea and it is not
supported by us. It is software for a Debian-derived distributions.
Probably, if more distros (Debian, Ubuntu, LinEx, Molinux and others
Debian-derived distributions) start to use it and we see other distros
like to use it, we'll convert it into upstream project (maybe in
GNOME) and the package will be changed into non-native one. But by now
we can't assure that the code itself will work in another distro. We
haven't tried it, neither we have prepared it for supporting it.
If you guys still see this as a non-native package, we'll change it,
but IMHO, at least right now, it is a native package.
Thanks for the aclaration anyway ;-)
Cheers.
Chow Loong Jin
> Hummm.... So, I wasn't wrong :-P
> This software was created for a Debian-derived distribution
> (Guadalinex). Maybe it's possible to change the packaging or compile
> from the sources, but it wasn't the initial idea and it is not
> supported by us. It is software for a Debian-derived distributions.
There is nothing Debian specific about mounting or unmounting devices.
It can be used just as easily on non-Debian systems as it can be on
Debian. This already makes it a non-native package. Native packages are
stuff like debhelper, lintian, apt, aptitude, etc. These are
Debian-specific and a core part of what makes Debian Debian.
>
> Probably, if more distros (Debian, Ubuntu, LinEx, Molinux and others
> Debian-derived distributions) start to use it and we see other distros
> like to use it, we'll convert it into upstream project (maybe in
> GNOME) and the package will be changed into non-native one. But by now
> we can't assure that the code itself will work in another distro. We
> haven't tried it, neither we have prepared it for supporting it.
You (as the upstream) not having prepared yourself for supporting it on
other distributions does not make this package a Debian native package.
As Boyd said, "If you can think of *any* reason that openSUSE, Fedora,
or Gentoo (users) would want to use the software (albeit with different
packaging) you should use normal (non-native) packaging." From what
you've said, it would seem that there definitely is a reason for users
of other distributions to use it.
>
> If you guys still see this as a non-native package, we'll change it,
> but IMHO, at least right now, it is a native package.
IMHO, it is not. :)
Matthew Palmer's debian-mentors FAQ[1] is a good read, by the way.
Scroll down to the section "What is the difference between a native
Debian package and a non-native package?"
[1] http://people.debian.org/~mpalmer/debian-mentors_FAQ.html
--
Regards,
Chow Loong Jin
Jonathan Wiltshire
> This software was created for a Debian-derived distribution
> (Guadalinex). Maybe it's possible to change the packaging or compile
> from the sources, but it wasn't the initial idea and it is not
> supported by us. It is software for a Debian-derived distributions.
>
> Probably, if more distros (Debian, Ubuntu, LinEx, Molinux and others
> Debian-derived distributions) start to use it and we see other distros
> like to use it, we'll convert it into upstream project (maybe in
> GNOME) and the package will be changed into non-native one.
> But by now
> we can't assure that the code itself will work in another distro. We
> haven't tried it, neither we have prepared it for supporting it.
That's the distribution's problem, not yours - if it doesn't work, they
won't distribute it. Native packages are (my quote marks) "conceptually only
useful to Debian installations", not "will only run on Debian installations".
> If you guys still see this as a non-native package, we'll change it,
> but IMHO, at least right now, it is a native package.
It's non-native.
--
Jonathan Wiltshire
PGP/GPG: 0xDB800B52 / 4216 F01F DCA9 21AC F3D3 A903 CA6B EA3E DB80 0B52
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
>On 24 jun, 21:40, "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." <b...@iguanasuicide.net> wrote:
>> In <135eeb1d0906241156q69c...@mail.gmail.com>, Juan
>> Jesús
>> Ojeda Croissier wrote:
>> >> * The version numbering is for "native package" without reason.
>> >
>> >Well, this is a native package, I think.
>>
>> want to use the software (albeit with different packaging) you should
>> use normal (non-native) packaging.
>
>(Guadalinex). Maybe it's possible to change the packaging or compile
>from the sources, but it wasn't the initial idea and it is not
>supported by us. It is software for a Debian-derived distributions.
It doesn't matter if you thought about doing it, or if you support it. The
is free software (right?), so someone could take it upon themselves to
package and support it for a non-Debian-derived distribution.
If that even makes sense, then the package should be a normal (non-native)
package. Even if the package is quite Debian-specific, if it is possible to
separate the "packaging" from the "software" there are other advantages to
normal (non-native) packaging.
Out of the 45 packages that start with "apt", most of which would be fairly
useless in a non-Debian-derived distribution, less than half are native.
Using very rough methods, it looks like only 1044 out of 26923 packages
available in main (stable+security+volatile+testing+testing-
security+unstable+experimental) are native and I'll wager some of those
could be usefully converted to normal packaging.
>Probably, if more distros (Debian, Ubuntu, LinEx, Molinux and others
>Debian-derived distributions) start to use it and we see other distros
>like to use it, we'll convert it into upstream project (maybe in
>GNOME) and the package will be changed into non-native one.
Converting back and forth is even worse than being a native package. If
there's a possibility that the package could be usefully converted into a
normal (non-native) package in the future, that is reason *enough* to have
it be a normal (non-native) package now.
>But by now
>we can't assure that the code itself will work in another distro. We
>haven't tried it, neither we have prepared it for supporting it.
No one is asking you to.
>If you guys still see this as a non-native package, we'll change it,
>but IMHO, at least right now, it is a native package.
No, it shouldn't be a native package. I'll admit that the rules are a bit
subjective. However, "I don't want to bother packaging for any other
distribution right now" is definitely *NOT* a reason to to make the package
native. Normal (non-native) packaging is the default; you need a good reason
to make the package native.
Juan Jesús Ojeda Croissier
Ok, now I see the real meaning of normal (non-native) and native package.
I had really understood that a native package was a package created
for the distro (a Debian-rerived distro), instead of a existing
software that you packaging for the distro.
My mistake. I'll change it.
[...]
Thanks for the explanation :-)
Cheers