[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#809308: RFS: cl-asdf/3.1.6 [ITA] - Another System Definition Facility



On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 04:39:26PM +0100, Kambiz Darabi wrote:
> Thank you for the heads up, Mattia. Since January, I am working on
> several projects and unfortunately forgot to finish the packaging.

no worries, let's finish this :)

> > * make is called should be called by dh_auto_build in this case, let it
> >   do it's job?
> 
> I tried without the first $(MAKE) which is still there:
> 
> > override_dh_auto_build:
> > 	$(MAKE)
> > 	$(MAKE) -C doc all
> > 	ln -sf build/asdf.lisp .
> 
> but then it looks like make is not being called, as the default target
> 'build/asdf.lisp' creates the build/ directory, but I get an error
> related to the missing of that dir:

what I meant was something like this:

--- cl-asdf-3.1.6/debian/rules	2016-02-29 14:58:34.000000000 +0000
+++ cl-asdf-3.1.6/debian/rules	2016-02-29 17:24:45.000000000 +0000
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
 	dh $@
 
 override_dh_auto_build:
-	$(MAKE)
+	dh_auto_build
 	$(MAKE) -C doc all
 	ln -sf build/asdf.lisp .
 

but I see it's indeed pointless.  dh_auto_build calls `make -j1`, which
is in no way an improvment.  Actually, it may be clearer to see make(1)
being called in d/rules rather than hiding it under dh_auto_build, in
this case.

> > * Debian has resources, is there a real reason not to run tests at build
> >   time?  "extensive tests are performed before release of the orig.tgz
> >   on different implementations, so we don't need to perform any test"
> >   it's quite untrue: stuff breaks even *after* the release, just because
> >   some dependency changes behaviour or such.
> 
> I am willing to work towards a version which runs the tests but as
> Francois-René Rideau, who is the previous maintainer and packager has
> pointed out in [1], it requires a lot of work which involves creating
> several additional Debian packages for the test dependencies.
> 
> I would like to ask for continuing the current practice of not running
> the tests at build time, but promise to look into the issue in future.

Ok, fine.


A couple more things I'd like to see before uploading:

* in the meantime a new version of policy is out, 3.9.7.  Check whether
  your package is still compliant [0] and if so bump Standards-Version
* in d/changelog, there should be a blank line between the first line
  with the package name and the version, and the changelog text

Then, it's good to go :)

[0] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist

-- 
regards,
                        Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540      .''`.
more about me:  http://mapreri.org                              : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri                  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: