Application Review Request: Suspended Sentence 1.0.1

Hmmm why are you merging with the commercial screenshots branch?

We are waiting on some stuff to come back from the tech board about /opt but it shouldnt take too long.

> Hmmm why are you merging with the commercial screenshots branch?

Because these instructions said so:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PostReleaseApps/Metadata

Oh I didnt see that at all thanks for correcting me

Packaging updates uploaded, in line with the new Tech Board approved policy updates:

suspended-sentence (1.0.1-0extras1~ppa3) maverick; urgency=low

  * ARB Official location is now
    /opt/extras.ubuntu.com/<packagename>-<upstram-version>
  * Drop lintian overrides, they are installed outside /opt
  * Move package documentation into /opt
  * Disable byte-compilation, as dh_python2 installs outside /opt

suspended-sentence (1.0.1-0extras1~ppa2) maverick; urgency=low

  * Use DejaVu instead of Bitstream Vera.
  * Version the python dependency, for X-P-V support.

Assigning to me for review

I just looked over the code and debian directory and it looks fine. Installs fine as well and is playable.

Can I suggest updating the documentation to specify where changelog + copyright etc. must be moved, and specify a version number scheme?

Looks good to me. Packaging follows the criteria based on what's in the WIKI.
Packages installs and uninstalls fine, nothing is outside of /opt except the .desktop file. Menu entry appears properly.

I still find it weird not to have the changelog and copyright file in /usr/share/doc/<package name>/ and asked for clarification to other ARB members. I'd also be interested to know if doing that would break any tool as I'm myself quite used to look for changelogs and licensing details in there.

I noticed your replaced Vera.ttf and VeraBd.ttf by the ones provided by ttf-dejavu-core, was there any reason that you couldn't do something similar with the Monospace.ttf one ?
It's not a major problem but still brings 670K of extra data in the package so I'm wondering if it can easily be avoided.

Just as a side note, it might be interesting to mention that the license is MIT in the COPYING file as that file already contains the authors and so isn't an exact copy of the license itself. It's still fine as it's as the license name is mentioned in README.txt and the license text is in COPYING but it'd have been a bit easier to find the information if it was in the same file.

Thanks for you work and sorry for the delay.

> I still find it weird not to have the changelog and copyright file in
> /usr/share/doc/<package name>/ and asked for clarification to other ARB
> members. I'd also be interested to know if doing that would break any
> tool as I'm myself quite used to look for changelogs and licensing
> details in there.

Indeed, thanks. Going from [0] and the month in early nanny where
pkgbinarymangler completely stripped changelogs, we can assume that
someone else did *some* research into the changelog component.

Copyright OTOH, who knows. Lintian complains, but I haven't seen any
tool breakage.

Obviously it will affect all documentation browsers. The best one can
really do here is provide a way to access the documentation, within the
app. I'm not about to do that, so I'm just not installing any
documentation at all.

[0]: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/performance-desktop-n-install-footprint

> was there any reason that you couldn't do something similar with the
> Monospace.ttf one ?

The only reason it's there is that we couldn't find any monospace fonts
under open-enough licencing to be shipped with our source code. That's
not really an issue here.

I had a quick look, there is a TTF font with the right courier-look,
FreeMono from freefont. But it doesn't render properly in Suspended
Sentence.

> It's not a major problem but still brings 670K of extra data in the
> package so I'm wondering if it can easily be avoided.

I'm imagining ARB packages in general will end up being quite bloaty.
Commercial, and non-packager-packaged software tends to be. Esp when
they'll have to bundle libraries.

> It's still fine as it's as the license name is mentioned in README.txt
> and the license text is in COPYING but it'd have been a bit easier to
> find the information if it was in the same file.

If I'm understanding what you are saying here, I don't think this is
unusual. Only the big licences tend to contain their names and separate
the license grant text from the license itself. So there is no need to
name the license in COPYING.

licensecheck can also tell you what's going on.

We just voted on it during our ARB meeting. The current version "1.0.1-0extras1~ppa3" got approved by all present ARB members.

I also clarified the changelog and copyright situation on our mailing list and it's a TB requirement for them to be out of /usr as well, so in that regard your package is perfect. I guess we'll soon notice if it breaks some tools and will either have to send that to the TB or update the tool in question.

Can you please confirm you're fine with version "1.0.1-0extras1~ppa3" to be uploaded to extras.ubuntu.com ?

We are currently discussing which version number to use when pushing to extras.ubuntu.com, once we've decided I'll let you know, so you can either re-upload to your PPA with that version number and I'll copy it over to extras or I'll just re-upload myself directly to extras.

Thanks for your work

> Can you please confirm you're fine with version "1.0.1-0extras1~ppa3" to be uploaded to extras.ubuntu.com ?

Yes. Please let me know re versioning. You're also welcome to upload it directly to your ppa (and may need to do that if you pick something lower than -0extras

Hi,

Sorry again for the delay, it took a while getting the screenshots branch merged and published.

Congratulations for getting the first extra package in the repository:
Checking signature on .changes
gpg: Signature made Wed 19 Jan 2011 12:23:40 AM CET using RSA key ID 64792D67
gpg: Good signature from "Stéphane Graber <email address hidden>"
gpg: aka "Stéphane Graber <email address hidden>"
Good signature on /home/stgraber/suspended-sentence/suspended-sentence_1.0.1-0extras10.10.1_source.changes.
Checking signature on .dsc
gpg: Signature made Wed 19 Jan 2011 12:23:37 AM CET using RSA key ID 64792D67
gpg: Good signature from "Stéphane Graber <email address hidden>"
gpg: aka "Stéphane Graber <email address hidden>"
Good signature on /home/stgraber/suspended-sentence/suspended-sentence_1.0.1-0extras10.10.1.dsc.
Package includes an .orig.tar.gz file although the debian revision suggests
that it might not be required. Multiple uploads of the .orig.tar.gz may be
rejected by the upload queue management software.
Uploading to ppa (via ftp to ppa.launchpad.net):
  Uploading suspended-sentence_1.0.1-0extras10.10.1.dsc: done.
  Uploading suspended-sentence_1.0.1.orig.tar.gz: done.
  Uploading suspended-sentence_1.0.1-0extras10.10.1.debian.tar.gz: done.
  Uploading suspended-sentence_1.0.1-0extras10.10.1_source.changes: done.
Successfully uploaded packages.

Marking Fix Commited for now, will mark Fix Released once we see it in the Software Center.