ARB queue review February 2012 week 1

Summary

Status:

• 20 apps in the queue effectively pending review

• 7 apps in "Needs Information" state, that require reviewer's attention

Low-hanging fruit (7 out of 20):

1. Tagplayer (PPA ready for review, uses Python and Quickly)

2. Guallet (source package ready for review)

3. Memory card game (Needs packaging, but it's an extremely small QML app)

4. Nuvola Music Player (PPA ready for review)

5. Revision Monitor (PPA ready for review)

6. license manager (source package ready for review)

7. Framingham Calculator (source package and PPA ready for review, Quickly app)

Complex apps (4 out of 20):

1. THE SCND GENESIS: LEGENDS (Game, 80+ Mb)

2. Nuvola Music Player (codebase bigger than the usual entry on the queue, uses the net to connect to cloud music services)

3. TetraCity (Game, codebase bigger than the usual entry on the queue)

4. TerraView 4.2 (140+ Mb)

Apps on which developer asks for help or need other kind of attention:

1. Color Grab (The developer asks for help with package dependencies, as one of them does not exist in Oneiric.)

2. Ubuntu Tweak (The developer asks whether some files can be installed outside /opt.)

3. Symphaty (The developer expresses his lack of experience with .deb packages, and states he had uploaded a corrected file with something that seems to be a pre-built package.)

4. Analyze3DObject (The comment concerns unavailability (on Linux) of the compiler this app needs.)

5. Persy (The developer seems to have problem with re-uploading file, asks whether did it correctly, but application is still in Needs Information phase)

6. SkypeTab (The application is said to be rewritten and resent.)

7. Bottles (I'm not sure if ARB feedback is needed there, the developer seems to have decided to get the application to universe, yet he asks Jonathan to sponsor the upload.)

Workflow

Low-hanging fruit

Rest of the queue

Review

1. Guallet

Summary:

• Typo in short description: 'How you manage your wallet?'
• Other than that, ready to review

Packaging review:

• The submission contains a source package
• I haven't checked for the correctness of the package

Code review:

• Python
• The code complexity is low enough to review
• Couldn't spot any malicious code or anything that messes about with the system
• It would be a perfect candidate to be ported to Quickly. I'd be tempted to suggesting that

• All code comments in Spanish

• It does not follow standard practices in a few places. Not sure if this should be a reason to ask to resubmit. Some examples:
  • Translations location hardcoded to a non-standard path
  • Uses libglade instead of gtkbuilder
  • Harcodes a few paths

Next steps:

• Review package

• Give feedback on MyApps

2. pac

Summary:

• Needs a source package to be submitted

Packaging review:

• Developer might need help packaging. Last feedback from developer on MyApps:

"Hi! Thanks for your anser! I have absolutely no idea on building .deb packages (that's why I use "epm" and its corresponding pac.list file built by me) I have absolutely no problem in changing everything you mention, except for the binaries you mention (those Vte.so files), since I have not found them for Ubuntu in the usual "channles" (only at Getdeb.net), that's why I put them in the .deb package, and of course, the code ready to look for those binaries (32 and 64 bit) there. Please, let me know if that is any problem, or any solution you may find. Thanks a lot in advance!! * David."

Code review:

• I can't do Perl :/

Next steps:

• Suggestions:
  • Package it up
  • Help the author packaging it
  • Reject on the grounds that the ARB does not have capacity to package all apps

3. Unicode Rewriter

Summary:

• Needs a reworked long description
• Needs to be packaged (it's a .jar file)

Packaging review:

• Needs packaging

Code review:

• Not experienced enough in Java and its installation layout to do it.

Next steps:

• Ask the author to provide a package

4. Fleeting Password Manager

Summary:

• Needs icons in all sizes other than 64px
• Needs source package
• Author feedback: "How long will it take to get the application reviewed? This is annoying, because I already have newer versions and still no feedback at all."

Packaging review:

• Needs package
• The upstream website has got a binary package, so the author should be able to provide a source package

Code review:

• It's a Qt C++ app
• Couldn't spot any malicious 'call home' code

Next steps:

• Ask the author to provide source package

5. Leds

Summary:

• Needs source package

Packaging review:

• Needs source package

Code review:

• Mono app
• It bundles a bunch of .dlls :/
• Code comments in Spanish
• Code base is relatively small, does not seem to mess with the system or access the network

Next steps:

• Ask the author to provide the source package

6. TetraCity

Summary:

• Needs source package

Packaging review:

• Needs source package
• There is a script to create the package in the code, so the author should be able to provide a source package

Code review:

• Ruby code
• Not experienced in Ruby enough to review, but at a first glance, the code seemed complex

Next steps:

• Ask app author to submit source package

7. Qoobar

Summary:

• Needs icons for all sizes except 64px
• Needs source package

Packaging review:

• Needs source package
• There is a debian directory in the tree with some skeletal packaging

Code review:

• Qt C++ app
• Quite a lot of files to review, did not look at all of them
• It uses the net to talk to musicbrainz.org

Next steps:

• Ask author to submit source package
• Ask author to submit missing icons

8. Teatime

Summary:

• Needs icons for all sizes except 64px
• Needs source package

Code review:

• Python
• Very small and simple codebase, all looks good in terms of not messing about with the system
• There are some hardcoded paths in the code
• It would be a good candidate to be ported to quickly

Packaging review:

• Needs source package
• There is a debian directory in the tree, so the author might be able to generate the source package

Next steps:

• Ask author to submit source package
• Ask author to submit missing icons

9. TagPlayer

Summary:

• Needs source package but has got a PPA
• Needs all icon sizes except 64px

Packaging review:

• Needs source package, but has got a PPA at https://launchpad.net/~hikibi/+archive/tagplayer

• It uses Python, so it should be relatively easy

Code review:

• Python and Quickly
• Everything seems ok at a quick glance. It imports the lastfm library, but does not seem to use it.

Next steps:

• Review the source package in the PPA
• Ask the author to upload all icon sizes

10. Hackety Hack

Summary:

• Needs all icon sizes other than 64px
• Needs source package

Packaging review:

• Needs source package

• Depends on a version of shoes not in debian or precise, author offered to help updating debian package in Debian bug 566674

Code review:

• Ruby. Did not do a review.

Next steps:

• Ask author to submit source package
• Ask author to submit missing icon sizes

11. Memory card game

Summary:

• Needs source package

Code review:

• QML with minimal C++ code
• Very small codebase. Everything looks fine

Next steps:

• Contact author to submit source package (David: done, but it'd be nice to update the status in My Apps)
• Alternatively, it's a simple enough codebase for anyone with packaging experience in Qt/QML to tackle

12. Duplicati

Summary:

• Needs source package
• Looks like a nice app

Packaging review:

• Needs source package

Code review:

• Mono app
• Couldn't do any review, only binaries were submitted

Next steps:

• Ask author to submit source package

13. TerraView 4.2

Summary:

• Needs 32px and 16px icons
• Big tarball (140+ Mb), although much of it are images

Packaging review:

• Needs source package
• I'd recommend splitting the localized images, help and data in separate packages

Code review:

• Qt C++ app. Could not review, as only binaries were submitted
• Source is available from the upstream subversion repository, sloccount puts it at about 400kLOC.

Next steps:

• Ask app author to talk to Debian GIS team & try & arrange sponsorship there, as the main library that the app depends on (from the same upstream) is already packaged by that team

14. THE SCND GENESIS: LEGENDS

Summary:

• Needs to correct spelling mistakes in description
• It might be worth suggesting not to use all caps in the app name

Packaging review:

• I'm not sure the package looks right to me. It needs to be looked at by someone more experienced

Code review:

• Java, and huge codebase. Did not review.

Next steps:

• Ask author to fix spelling mistakes in description
• Review package

15. Nuvola Music Player

Summary:

• Has source package and a PPA
• Ready to review!
• A popular app

Packaging review:

• Looks ok, has a PPA, but needs to be checked by an Ubuntu dev

Code review:

• Vala, did not look at it in detail

Next steps:

• Review package

16. BooruPy Loadr

Summary:

• Needs source package
• Small codebase

Packaging review:

• Needs source package

Code review:

• Python, very small codebase
• It looks ok to me, it does contact the net, though

Next steps:

• Ask author to submit source package
• Recommend to use quickly?

17. license manager

Summary:

• Has source package
• Ready to review!

Packaging review:

• Needs source package review

Code review:

• Qt C++ app, code base is not as small as the others in the queue, so it needs a bit more than a quick glance

Next steps:

• Review package

18. nSnake

Summary:

• Needs source package
• Nice little game for those missing the good old textual UI

Packaging review:

• Needs source package
• It's pure C with no other dependencies than the standard lib and nCurses. It's got a Makefile, so it should be straight forward to package

Code review:

• C with standard lib and nCurses
• Looks ok to me.

Next steps:

• Ask the author to submit a source package, or alternatively help him package it.

19. Revision Monitor

Summary:

• Has a PPA available

• Ready to review!

Packaging review:

• Looks ok, has a PPA, but needs to be checked by an Ubuntu dev

Code review:

• Python and Quickly
• Looks fine from a quick glance, it does contact the net, though

Next steps:

• Review package

20. Framingham Calculator

Summary:

• Written with Quickly, PPA url given in the feedback section
• Ready to review!

Packaging review:

• Looks ok, but needs to be checked by an Ubuntu dev

Code review:

• Python and Quickly
• Looks fine from a quick glance, small codebase, the bulk of it is Quickly boilerplate code

Next steps:

• Review package