2:27 p.m.
Hello!
I am contacting you here because I have found this thread [1] on
askfedora, I hope I am not bothering by sending this mail (in the wrong
list). If I am doing so, please accept my excuses in advance...
So! I am the author of ZeGrapher [2], a very intuitive math plotting
software that exists since 2011.
Being a user of Fedora for more than ten years, adding ZeGrapher's
package to the distro is one of my goals since its beginning. I thought
I'd do so myself but unfortunately I haven't had the time to learn how
to, since I am the only developer and website maintainer (the packaging
how-to is kinda discouraging too). Thus I am contacting you to ask if
someone would be willing to maintain its package: no big deal, the
source code is available on Github and it uses only Qt (and Boost for
only one small function). The software is approximately updated once a
year.
Please feel free to contact me for any question or request.
Thank you,
Best regards,
Adel Kara Slimane
Links:
------
[1]
https://ask.fedoraproject.org/en/question/106042/where-do-i-request-new-p...
[2] http://mail.ovh.net/zegrapher.com
6:02 p.m.
On lundi 25 septembre 2017 21:27:34 CEST adel.ks(a)zegrapher.com wrote:
Hello!
I am contacting you here because I have found this thread [1] on
askfedora, I hope I am not bothering by sending this mail (in the wrong
list). If I am doing so, please accept my excuses in advance...
So! I am the author of ZeGrapher [2], a very intuitive math plotting
software that exists since 2011.
Being a user of Fedora for more than ten years, adding ZeGrapher's
package to the distro is one of my goals since its beginning. I thought
I'd do so myself but unfortunately I haven't had the time to learn how
to, since I am the only developer and website maintainer (the packaging
how-to is kinda discouraging too). Thus I am contacting you to ask if
someone would be willing to maintain its package: no big deal, the
source code is available on Github and it uses only Qt (and Boost for
only one small function). The software is approximately updated once a
year.
Please feel free to contact me for any question or request.
Thank you,
Best regards,
Adel Kara Slimane
Links:
------
[1]
https://ask.fedoraproject.org/en/question/106042/where-do-i-request-new-pack
ages-to-be-added-to-the-fedora-repos/ [2] http://mail.ovh.net/zegrapher.com
Hello Adel,
I've packaged your app on COPR [1] for now and I'll ask a package review
tomorrow morning (UTC+2) or when you'll have fixed the points below.
Please note that there is a typo in the French description of your .desktop
file:
Comment[fr]=Logiciel de tacé de courbes
You're missing the « r » in « tracé ».
Some of the source files included in the source archive have executable
permissions, which is not right:
ZeGrapher-3.0.1:
.rwxr-xr-x@ 3,9k bob 6 mars 17:42 Structures.h
.rwxr-xr-x@ 2,2k bob 6 mars 17:42 main.cpp
ZeGrapher-3.0.1/Calculus:
.rwxr-xr-x@ 6,4k bob 6 mars 17:42 polynomial.cpp
.rwxr-xr-x@ 2,5k bob 6 mars 17:42 polynomial.h
.rwxr-xr-x@ 7,9k bob 6 mars 17:42 polynomialregression.cpp
.rwxr-xr-x@ 2,8k bob 6 mars 17:42 polynomialregression.h
.rwxr-xr-x@ 2,1k bob 6 mars 17:42 regression.cpp
.rwxr-xr-x@ 1,9k bob 6 mars 17:42 regression.h
.rwxr-xr-x@ 8,6k bob 6 mars 17:42 settings.cpp
ZeGrapher-3.0.1/Windows:
.rwxr-xr-x@ 8,6k bob 6 mars 17:42 settings.cpp
.rwxr-xr-x@ 10k bob 6 mars 17:42 settings.ui
Please fix this, hopefully in a 3.0.2 release?
Also it would be nice to include an INSTALL file or instructions in the
README.md on how to build your app and what are the required dependencies.
You might also consider Flatpak or Appimage for disribution to other Linux
distro.
Best regards,
Robert-André
[1] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/eclipseo/zegrapher/
6:15 p.m.
Here it is: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/srakitnican/default/build/607839/
Still not sure about naming issue, package wants to name files ZeGrapher, I called the
package zegrapher, debian maintainers go a step further and call package files zegrapher
also.
TODO: AppStream metadata
It would be nice if build system would support install
3:09 a.m.
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:15:25PM -0000, Samuel Rakitničan wrote:
Here it is:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/srakitnican/default/build/607839/
Still not sure about naming issue, package wants to name files ZeGrapher, I called the
package zegrapher, debian maintainers go a step further and call package files zegrapher
also.
I think that both the package name and executable should be "zegrapher".
The appdata and desktop files and the displayed name can all be "ZeGrapher",
but the stuff that you type should be lowercase.
TODO: AppStream metadata
It would be nice if build system would support install
There's two pull
requests upstream for that, so this shouldn't be a problem ;)
Zbyszek
12:37 p.m.
/*Samuel Rakitničan*/ wrote on Mon, 25 Sep 2017 23:15:25 -0000:
Here it is:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/srakitnican/default/build/607839/
Still not sure about naming issue, package wants to name files ZeGrapher, I called the
package zegrapher, debian maintainers go a step further and call package files zegrapher
also.
I'd say to stick with upstream naming, which is the Fedora way. Changing
the names to lower case is a must in Debian, they simply don't allow
upper case letters to be in package names. The developer clearly prefers
ZeGrapher, so I think according to Fedora naming guidelines, ZeGrapher
is preferred.
Hedayat
10:49 p.m.
>>>> "HV" == Hedayat Vatankhah
<hedayat.fwd(a)gmail.com> writes:
HV> I'd say to stick with upstream naming, which is the Fedora
HV> way. Changing the names to lower case is a must in Debian, they
HV> simply don't allow upper case letters to be in package names. The
HV> developer clearly prefers ZeGrapher, so I think according to Fedora
HV> naming guidelines, ZeGrapher is preferred.
Well, those guidelines do say:
"Package names should be in lower case and use dashes in preference to
underscores."
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming, under "General Naming".
Upper case names aren't forbidden, of course, but there is a definite
and clearly-stated preference for lower case names.
- J<
1:57 a.m.
On 27 Sep 2017 04:50, "Jason L Tibbitts III" <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> wrote:
>>>> "HV" == Hedayat Vatankhah
<hedayat.fwd(a)gmail.com> writes:
HV> I'd say to stick with upstream naming, which is the Fedora
HV> way. Changing the names to lower case is a must in Debian, they
HV> simply don't allow upper case letters to be in package names. The
HV> developer clearly prefers ZeGrapher, so I think according to Fedora
HV> naming guidelines, ZeGrapher is preferred.
Well, those guidelines do say:
"Package names should be in lower case and use dashes in preference to
underscores."
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming, under "General Naming".
Upper case names aren't forbidden, of course, but there is a definite
and clearly-stated preference for lower case names.
-
That refers to the package name, which he's already made lowercase, and not
the installed binaries though
2:19 a.m.
/*Jason L Tibbitts Iii*/ wrote on Tue, 26 Sep 2017 22:49:18 -0500:
>>>>> "HV" == Hedayat Vatankhah
<hedayat.fwd(a)gmail.com> writes:
HV> I'd say to stick with upstream naming, which is the Fedora
HV> way. Changing the names to lower case is a must in Debian, they
HV> simply don't allow upper case letters to be in package names. The
HV> developer clearly prefers ZeGrapher, so I think according to Fedora
HV> naming guidelines, ZeGrapher is preferred.
Well, those guidelines do say:
"Package names should be in lower case and use dashes in preference to
underscores."
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming, under "General Naming".
Upper case names aren't forbidden, of course, but there is a definite
and clearly-stated preference for lower case names.
What about this:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming#Case_Sensitivity
Keep in mind to respect the wishes of the upstream maintainers. If they
refer to their application as "ORBit", you should use "ORBit" as the
package name, and not "orbit". However, if they do not express any
preference of case, you should default to lowercase naming.
- J<
12:37 p.m.
/*Samuel Rakitničan*/ wrote on Mon, 25 Sep 2017 23:15:25 -0000:
Here it is:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/srakitnican/default/build/607839/
Still not sure about naming issue, package wants to name files ZeGrapher, I called the
package zegrapher, debian maintainers go a step further and call package files zegrapher
also.
I'd say to stick with upstream naming, which is the Fedora way. Changing
the names to lower case is a must in Debian, they simply don't allow
upper case letters to be in package names. The developer clearly prefers
ZeGrapher, so I think according to Fedora naming guidelines, ZeGrapher
is preferred.
Hedayat
5:22 p.m.
adel.ks(a)zegrapher.com wrote:
and Boost for only one small function
Since I was curious, I looked for that function and found it in
polynomial.cpp. But why do you include the headers in polynomial.h? The
usage of Boost in Polynomial::translateX is an implementation detail and so
the headers should be included only in the implementation file
polynomial.cpp.
Of course, this is not a big issue, it only increases the compile time by
some fraction of a second, but I wanted to give you the hint anyway.
Kevin Kofler
7:30 a.m.
On 28.09.2017 00:22, Kevin Kofler wrote:
adel.ks(a)zegrapher.com wrote:
> and Boost for only one small function
Since I was curious, I looked for that function and found it in
polynomial.cpp. But why do you include the headers in polynomial.h? The
usage of Boost in Polynomial::translateX is an implementation detail
and so
the headers should be included only in the implementation file
polynomial.cpp.
Of course, this is not a big issue, it only increases the compile time
by
some fraction of a second, but I wanted to give you the hint anyway.
Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Yea well, since I used the convention of including libs only in the .h I
didn't do so. But yes you're right! I will update that.
6:24 a.m.
adel.ks(a)zegrapher.com wrote:
Yea well, since I used the convention of including libs only in the
.h I
didn't do so. But yes you're right! I will update that.
Well, that convention doesn't make sense to begin with.
You should only #include in the .h file what you actually need to declare
your public API. Anything required only as part of the implementation should
be #include-d only in the .cpp file.
Kevin Kofler
12:07 p.m.
On 30/09/17 13:24 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
adel.ks(a)zegrapher.com wrote:
> Yea well, since I used the convention of including libs only in the .h I
> didn't do so. But yes you're right! I will update that.
Well, that convention doesn't make sense to begin with.
You should only #include in the .h file what you actually need to declare
your public API. Anything required only as part of the implementation should
be #include-d only in the .cpp file.
Yes, it's not a convention, it's a bug.
2399
days inactive
2405
days old
12 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
adel.ks＠zegrapher.com -
Hedayat Vatankhah -
James Hogarth -
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Jonathan Wakely -
Kevin Kofler -
Robert-André Mauchin -
Samuel Rakitničan -
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek