[ubuntu-art] [Breathe] Release Manager position open

[Cory K.]

Andrew wrote:
> On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Cory K. <coryisatm at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> I envision the release manager doing:
>>
>>    * Release notes/announcements.
>>    * Preparing the packages. .tar or .deb. (whatever needed)
>>    * Uploading to various sites and being the teams point-of-contact there.
>>
>> Anyone new up for that?
>>
>>     
>
> I've got a few questions about release preparations, branch layouts, and such...
>
> First of all, what format should the release tarball be in? There are
> few options:
>
> 1) Simple drop into theme manager style tarball with only:
>
> 16x16  22x22  24x24  32x32  48x48  index.theme  scalable
>
> 2) A real release tarball along with a deb.
>   

I don't think a tarball is needed. Just the .deb and theme manager .tar.gz

> Which branch would the release be from? The autotools magic is only in
> the debian packaging branch.
>   

Well the packaging branch currently is set up best for a release and as
this is a release for a .deb-based distro I feel releasing from it is
fine. One can manually make a theme.tar.gz from that.

> Some other issues:
>
> The COPYING file in the debian packaging branch and the LICENSE file
> in the breath-icon-set branch are different.
>   

Will fix.

> README in both branches is an empty file.
>   

Sure. Doesn't /really/ hurt anything. The packaging branch uses my
Ubuntu Studio package as a base. Same thing there. Nobody bitched in 4
releases but I'm sure things can be made better.

> I was able to create a standard GNU style release tarball from the
> debian packaging branch with the following steps:
>
> Edit version number in configure.ac and configure.ac-template
> rm -r debian
> bzr log -v --gnu-changelog > ChangeLog
> autoreconf
> automake --add-missing
> autoreconf
> ./autogen.sh
> make
> make check
> make distcheck
>
> Anyways, I might be interested in taking on the release manager role.
> But in many ways it seems like a task for you, Cory, since you are the
> one setting goals and driving development. Though, not being an
> artist, it would be a way that I could contribute to the project.
>   

As is said many times on this list, we don't just need artists. We need
technical people as well. ;) Another tech to take some of it off my
sholders and make the packaging branch even better would rock.


Andrew wrote:
> On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Andrew <a.starr.b at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> I'd also do a review of the debian packaging if it would be helpful.
>>     
>
> Here's an initial review, whether or not you want it. =)
>   

Perfect. ;)

> Lintian (a QA tool for debian packaging) isn't happy:
>
> I: breathe-icon-theme source: debian-watch-file-is-missing
>
> As there hasn't been a release, that makes sense. Assuming that the
> official hosting will be on LP, the watch file should look something
> like this:
>
> version=3
> https://launchpad.net/breathe-icon-set/+download
> http://launchpad.net/breathe-icon-set/.*/breathe-icon-theme-(.+).tar.gz
>
> W: breathe-icon-theme source: debhelper-but-no-misc-depends breathe-icon-theme
>
>  ${misc:Depends} should be added to the Depends field.
>
> W: breathe-icon-theme source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.8.0
> (current is 3.8.1)
>
> Standards-Version should be bumped to 3.8.1
>
> I: breathe-icon-theme source: xs-vcs-header-in-debian-control xs-vcs-bzr
>
> Vcs-Bzr is now an accepted field. the XS can be dropped.
>
> I: breathe-icon-theme source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source
> field "section" in package breathe-icon-theme
> N:
> N:    In debian/control, this field for a binary package duplicates the value
> N:    inherited from the source package paragraph. This doesn't hurt anything,
> N:    but you may want to take advantage of the inheritance and set the value
> N:    in only one place. It prevents missing duplicate places that need to be
> N:    fixed if the value ever changes.
> N:
> N:    Severity: wishlist, Certainty: certain
>
> P: breathe-icon-theme: no-homepage-field
>
> A Homepage: field could be added to debian/control
>
> I: breathe-icon-theme: extended-description-is-probably-too-short
>
> Or at least the automated check thinks so, but I don't think it can
> read. ;-) Wouldn't hurt to extend it a bit.
>
> W: breathe-icon-theme: extended-description-line-too-long
>
> Lines in debian/control shouldn't be longer than 80 characters.
>
> I: breathe-icon-theme: copyright-with-old-dh-make-debian-copyright
> N:
> N:    The copyright file contains the incomplete Debian packaging copyright
> N:    boilerplate from older versions of dh_make. (C) is not considered as a
> N:    valid way to express the copyright ownership. The word Copyright or the
> N:    © symbol should be used instead or in addition to (C).
> N:
> N:    Severity: wishlist, Certainty: certain
>
> W: breathe-icon-theme: copyright-refers-to-versionless-license-file
> usr/share/common-licenses/GPL
>
> A specific version (ie GPL-2, GPL-2+, or GPL-3) should be used and
> linked to, not just genericly GPL.
>
>
> As is, it fails to build from source in a karmic pbuilder with a
> release tarball (generated like in my last email). The
> "makebuilddir/breathe-icon-theme" target isn't needed with a release
> tarball. "./update-build-files.sh" is stripped out when making a
> release. Commenting it out allowed it to build correctly. I'm not
> entirely sure what you want to do with this as that target is needed
> for a bzr snapshot.
>
> While most of the lintian issues are minor, the package won't get
> accepted to the archive with out clearing them up. I'll branch and
> make some fixes, and then propose a merge.
>   

I'll review the merge in the A.M. I'd also like to talk with you on IRC
or Skype if you are interested in being on the team in this technical
manner. Would possibly involve you being put on the team with direct
commit access.


-Cory K.