Re: osmpbf package
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:57:40AM +0100, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> On 03/11/2014 11:45 AM, Jochen Topf wrote:
> > I went through the osmpbf package and I think I have things more or less
> > ready for a new release. I am co-maintainer of the upstream package so
> > I have made all the changes there [1]:
>
> Thanks for working on the osmpbf packaging. I've updated the osmpbf git
> repository on Alioth with the v1.3.1 tagged release, and I've reviewed
> your changes in the upstream repository.
>
> The v1.3.1 release includes a debian directory in the source which
> caused conflicts with the debian directory for the official Debian package.
>
> It's generally discouraged to include a debian directory in your
> upstream project.The UpstreamGuide recommends to leave the debian
> directory out of the release tarballs, and just keep in your VCS. But
> this is not easily achieved with GitHub releases.
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide#Pristine_Upstream_Source
>
> In your recent changes you updated the Maintainer to Debian GIS, it's
> was better when you used your own email address like in v1.3.1. The
> Debian GIS team doesn't maintain the debian/ directory in the upstream
> source, we only maintain the official Debian package.
That was an attempt to bring the upstream debian directory as much as possible
in line with the official debian directory. But I have changed it back to my
email address now.
I don't want to live without the debian directory in the upstream repository,
because it is so much easier to work with it than with the complex Debian
setup. If we want more people to help with Debian packaging we need to keep
this simple. I understand that it makes things more complex for Debian
packagers, but would think that it could be solved on the Debian side. There
are so many specialized build script already, somebody could come up with
a way to solve this with a few more scripts. :-)
> I recommend to set the Maintainer in the upstream source to you as
> before, and in the Debian package have Debian GIS as Maintainer and you
> as one of the Uploaders. Unless you see your role more as upstream and
> would prefer others in the Debian GIS team to be the Uploaders. Team
> uploads are always possible.
>
> https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#nmu-team-upload
For the time being I see myself focusing more on upstream. This might change
in the future as I get more familiar with the Debian packaging stuff.
> > * The rules file from the Debian package used dh_auto_build etc. but in
> > upstream there are now cmake files in addition to the Makefiles, and
> > the auto build picks up the cmake stuff. I have changed this to use
> > the make build. (The cmake stuff has been added for Windows users.)
>
> You can use the option -B/--buildsystem makefile to force debhelper to
> use a specific build system instead of auto-detecting it. I've used this
> in the debian/rules for v1.3.1.
>
> http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-grass/osmpbf.git;a=blob;f=debian/rules
Great! I was sure such an option exists, but couldn't find it. I have used
your rules file now for upstream.
> > * I have slightly changed the description of the packages in upstream
> > debian/control file.
>
> Looks good. We can merge the change when you've released the new
> upstream version.
Okay. I have removed the ${shlibs:Depends} from libosmpbf-(java|dev) because
I get these warnings:
dpkg-gencontrol: warning: Depends field of package libosmpbf-java: unknown substitution variable ${shlibs:Depends}
dpkg-gencontrol: warning: Depends field of package libosmpbf-dev: unknown substitution variable ${shlibs:Depends}
Don't know whether that was the right thing to do.
> > * I don't think we need the debian/patches/00-fix_build_flags.patch any
> > more. When I do the build, those flags are added without it.
>
> We don't need the patch anymore indeed.
>
> We do need to append CPPFLAGS to CXXFLAGS to have the
> -D_FORTIFY_FUNCTIONS=2 hardening flag used too.
>
> http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-grass/osmpbf.git;a=commitdiff;h=747dbf6e4e1d60938a9dfa86dbb17cfc72cca03e
>
> > * There are some small bug fixes, better README, and some other changes.
>
> Looks good too. But the new build flags are not used by the debian
> package, you may want to append the buildflags in the Makefile to those
> already set externally.
Fixed.
> > * Upstream is at version 1.3.1. The changes I made are not in that release
> > yet, so after some of you looked it over, I want to make a 1.3.2 release
> > and then we can do the final Debian package.
>
> Have a look at the changes I made to the package for v1.3.1:
>
> http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-grass/osmpbf.git
>
> If we can minimize the diff between the debian directory maintained
> upstream and the debian directory maintained by the Debian GIS team I'd
> be very happy.
I think I pulled everything from Debian GIS team debian dir into upstream dir
except "changelog", "gbp.conf", the maintainer/uploaders in "control" and
"source/format". The last is needed for debuild to work in the upstream
repository for some reason.
I have pushed all changes to upstream and created a v1.3.2 release.
Jochen
--
Jochen Topf jochen@remote.org http://www.jochentopf.com/ +49-721-388298
Reply to: