Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "wofi-emoji":

  * Package name     : wofi-emoji
    Version          : 1.1.0-1
    Upstream contact : Zeioth <Zeioth@hotmail.com>
  * URL              : https://github.com/Zeioth/wofi-emoji
  * License          : Expat
  * Vcs              : https://salsa.debian.org/mdosch/wofi-emoji
    Section          : utils

The source builds the following binary packages:

   wofi-emoji - emoji support for wofi using wtype

To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL:

https://mentors.debian.net/package/wofi-emoji/

Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command:

   dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/wofi-emoji/wofi-emoji_1.1.0-1.dsc

Changes for the initial release:

  wofi-emoji (1.1.0-1) unstable; urgency=medium
  .
    * Initial release. (Closes: #1110872)

Regards,

I am not a Debian Developer (DD) (and can never be) and have no ability to
upload your package, sorry. This review is for your information with no
requirement to act upon it.

Martin,

Review of upload: 2025-08-11 21:57

Test 1 (reproducibility): Information only, not a blocker

* Good

Test 2 (pbuilder build): Information only

* Good

Test 3 (pbuilder build --twice): Information only

* Good

Test 4 (sbuild): Information only

Lintian:

Running lintian...
N:
W: wofi-emoji: no-manual-page [usr/bin/wofi-emoji]
N:
N:   Each binary in /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, /bin, /sbin or /usr/games should have
N:   a manual page
N:
N:   Note that though the man program has the capability to check for several
N:   program names in the NAMES section, each of these programs should have its
N:   own manual page (a symbolic link to the appropriate manual page is
N:   sufficient) because other manual page viewers such as xman or tkman don't
N:   support this.
N:
N:   If the name of the manual page differs from the binary by case, man may be
N:   able to find it anyway; however, it is still best practice to match the
N:   exact capitalization of the executable in the manual page.
N:
N:   If the manual pages are provided by another package on which this package
N:   depends, Lintian may not be able to determine that manual pages are
N:   available. In this case, after confirming that all binaries do have manual
N:   pages after this package and its dependencies are installed, please add a
N:   Lintian override.
N:
N:   Please refer to Manual pages (Section 12.1) in the Debian Policy Manual
N:   for details.
N:
N:   Visibility: warning
N:   Show-Always: no
N:   Check: documentation/manual
N:   Renamed from: binary-without-manpage
N:
N:
I: wofi-emoji source: out-of-date-standards-version 4.7.0 (released 2024-04-07)
(current is 4.7.2)
N:
N:   The source package refers to a Standards-Version older than the one that
N:   was current at the time the package was created (according to the
N:   timestamp of the latest debian/changelog entry). Please consider updating
N:   the package to current Policy and setting this control field
N:   appropriately.
N:
N:   If the package is already compliant with the current standards, you don't
N:   have to re-upload the package just to adjust the Standards-Version control
N:   field. However, please remember to update this field next time you upload
N:   the package.
N:
N:   See /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.txt.gz in the
N:   debian-policy package for a summary of changes in newer versions of
N:   Policy.
N:
N:   Please refer to
N:   https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.html for
N:   details.
N:
N:   Visibility: info
N:   Show-Always: no
N:   Check: fields/standards-version
N:
N:
I: wofi-emoji source: patch-not-forwarded-upstream [debian/patches/0001-PATCH-1-
2-Add-double-quote.patch]
N:
N:   According to the DEP-3 headers, this patch has not been forwarded
N:   upstream.
N:
N:   Please forward the patch and try to have it included in upstream's version
N:   control system. If the patch is not suitable for that, please mention
N:   not-needed in the Forwarded field of the patch header.
N:
N:   Please refer to social contract item 2, Coordination with upstream
N:   developers (Section 3.1.4) in the Debian Developer's Reference, Changes to
N:   the upstream sources (Section 4.3) in the Debian Policy Manual, and
N:   Bug#755153 for details.
N:
N:   Visibility: info
N:   Show-Always: no
N:   Check: debian/patches/dep3
N:   Renamed from: send-patch
N:

E: Lintian run failed (policy violation)

Test 5 (ratt): Information only, not a blocker

Note: Possible false positives.

* Good

Test 6 (debian/watch): Information only

* Good

Test 7 (licenserecon): Information only

* Good

Summary
=======

A couple of issues raised by lintian you may wish to look at.

Info: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/

Info: https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/deps/dep3/

Tags
====

If a 'moreinfo' tag has been added to your RFS bug. You can remove the tag using
the line below at the top of a reply that is supplying information and/or
indicating a new upload.

Control: tags -1 -moreinfo

Regards

Phil

Hi,

I do not know if the "wofi-emoji" file [1] could really be considered
the source for this package, because upstream clearly fetches the data
from another source to build this file in build.sh:

     #!/usr/bin/env bash
     sed -i '/^### DATA ###$/q' wofi-emoji
     curl https://raw.githubusercontent.com/muan/emojilib/v4.0.0/dist/emoji-en-US.json \
       | jq --raw-output '. | to_entries | .[] | .key + " " + (.value | join(" ") | sub("_"; " "; "g"))' \
       >> wofi-emoji

So maybe this package should depend on something like libjs-emojilib and
the script should be regenerated during the build of the package.

Alex


1: https://salsa.debian.org/mdosch/wofi-emoji/-/blob/debian/latest/wofi-emoji

Dear Philip,

thank you (again) for that extensive review, however, I'm not sure
whether I should go ahead with this package now, considering the current
discussion at [0].

Best regards,
Martin

[0]:https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1110872

Dear Philip,

thank you (again) for that extensive review, however, I'm not sure
whether I should go ahead with this package now, considering the current
discussion at [0].

Best regards,
Martin

[0]:https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1110872

Dear Alexander,

thank you for your input, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues raised
similar concerns at [0], therefore I think I won't follow up on
packaging wofi-emoji currently. If they package another package which
makes wofi-emoji superfluous, there is no need to have wofi-emoji in
Debian.

Best regards,
Martin

[0]:https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1110872

Hi Martin,

I see in other mails that you will be holding back on this. I really cannot add
anything to what has been said and the decision you have now made.

Regards

Phil