REVU: Automated Package Checks

Loïc Martin loic.martin3 at
Fri Jan 23 20:42:14 GMT 2009

Siegfried Gevatter (RainCT) wrote:
> [2009/1/23 Loïc Martin <loic.martin3 at>]
> Just some comments:
>> 1. debian/control
>> - wrong priority;
> How can this be determined? Priority "extra" is not always (although
> very often) wrong.

Indeed, it's not always wrong, but it can be suggested the uploader
check it really deserves the priority - and then the uploader can
comment on the reason on REVU, so reviewers will know why. Inexperienced
reviewers like me will almost surely point it to the uploader anyway ;)

A better solution could be to fix dh_make so it defaults to the priority
optional instead of "extra" (then we know the uploader set "extra" on

>> - maintainer field not assigned to MOTU, packager email need to be moved
>> to XSBC-Original-Maintainer;
> I think REVU already checks if the Maintainer has an address ending
> with "" :).

Indeed it does, as in

However, for whatever reason it doesn't seem to be obvious enough, and
Nathan solution might help, especially if REVU automated comments appear
as a review (thus as visible as somebody's comments), with numbers for
each points to be fixed, and a clear statement for those that would
"block" the package to get further review.

>> 2. debian/copyright
>> - no copyright/licence for the packaging (not sure it's mandatory).
>> Then maybe a grep on the source files for "copyright" "(c)" "(C)" and the
>> log added to the files so one can check without having to download the
>> files.
> Doesn't lintian complain if there's no copyright statement?

I didn't see lintian errors in REVU when I was reviewing the package
above, so it might not complain if there's no copyright/license for the
packaging. Again I'm not sure it's mandatory in either Ubuntu or Debian,
but if so it would be helpful for important packages where the uploader
gives up during the process but someone else would like to pick up its
work. If they at least license their packaging before disapearing that's
possible, else you'd have to track them, and it would be faster to redo
the work.

For greping the source files for copyright issues, I was under the
impression lintian doesn't do that by a comment on one of the wiki page
- a MOTU developer stated that the first thing he did when looking at
the copyright file was greping the source code.

>> - no man(s) page(s);
> I don't know how this could be checked...

I don't know either ;) but REVU could check debian/rules and see if
manpages are installed, check the different ways they get installed
(depending on the tool used to build the package). The uploader can
comment if REVU doesn't spot them, but I'm not sure there's so many
different ways to install man pages.


More information about the Ubuntu-motu mailing list