Bug#696899: RFS: premake4/4.3-1 [ITP] -- cross-platform build script generator
Hi Vincent,
Thanks for your feedback. I have made all the changes you suggested
and re-uploaded. I modified your patch slightly to add bsd to the
linux configuration in the premake4.lua. It doesn't matter too much
for the package build as the Makefile is already pre-generated but was
needed for submitting to upstream.
Cheers,
Cameron.
On 29 December 2012 17:35, Vincent Cheng <vincentc1208@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Cameron,
>
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Cameron Hart <cam@bitshifter.net.nz> wrote:
>> Package: sponsorship-requests
>> Severity: wishlist
>>
>> Dear mentors,
>>
>> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "premake4"
>>
>> * Package name : premake4
>> Version : 4.3-1
>> Upstream Author : Jason Perkins and individual contributors
>> * URL : http://industriousone.com/premake
>> * License : BSD
>> Section : devel
> <snip>
>
> IANADD, but here's a brief review:
>
> - debian/patches/rename-changelog.diff is entirely the wrong way to
> rename a changelog (and it results in a really large diff, yuck). If
> you were using dh, the following does what you want:
>
> override_dh_installchangelogs:
> dh_installchangelogs CHANGES.txt
>
> I'm not sure about cdbs since I rarely use it, but I believe you can
> use DEB_INSTALL_CHANGELOGS_ALL to accomplish the same thing.
>
> - The following patch should fix the build failure on
> kfreebsd-{i386,amd64} (I don't have a kfreebsd VM to test with right
> now, sorry). Please forward upstream.
>
> --- a/src/host/premake.h
> +++ b/src/host/premake.h
> @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
> #if defined(__linux__)
> #define PLATFORM_LINUX (1)
> #define PLATFORM_STRING "linux"
> -#elif defined(__FreeBSD__) || defined(__NetBSD__) || defined(__OpenBSD__)
> +#elif defined(__FreeBSD__) || defined(__NetBSD__) ||
> defined(__OpenBSD__) || defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__)
> #define PLATFORM_BSD (1)
> #define PLATFORM_STRING "bsd"
> #elif defined(__APPLE__) && defined(__MACH__)
>
> - A few pedantic notes on debian/copyright. Consider using the SPDX
> names, i.e. BSD-3-clause instead of just BSD, and Expat instead of
> MIT. Also, you may (or may not) want to consider using a more
> permissive license for your Debian packaging files (BSD/MIT to match
> upstream instead of GPL), to make it possible for e.g. upstream to
> take patches applied to your package in Debian.
>
> Regards,
> Vincent
Reply to: