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

Re: Help needed with supernovas package



Hi All,


I made some progress on some of the issues I mentioned earlier on packaging supernovas. Specifically,

 - I managed to generate the symbols files using the guide: https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/advanced.en.html

 - I changed the build to link the .so files against their dependencies. That took care of those build warnings about the missing symbols that are provided in the package


So, that just leaves:


 1. the warning about mismatched library names, and

 2. Build warnings, e.g.: debugedit: debian/supernovas/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libsolsys2.so.1: Unknown DWARF DW_FORM_0x1f20.


I'm not sure if the latter warning is consequential or not, and so far googling it I have not found a viable way to fix it.


Any comments and suggestions relating to the package are most welcome.


Thanks,


-- A.


On 5/25/24 9:20 PM, Attila Kovacs wrote:
Hi All,


I have now put together a preliminary debian package for the SuperNOVAS library on salsa:

 https://salsa.debian.org/debian-astro-team/supernovas

I did my best to follow documentation (the AstropyPackagingTutorial, and then whatever else I could find to fill in the blanks for non-python packaging). The package now builds fine on master. There are no lintian errors. However there are a couple of warnings left that I have not figured out hot to fix exactly.

I'm asking for help to fix these, before or as part of the package review.

Here's a list of the remaining warnings:

 0. lintian:  dh-make-template-in-source -- I intentionally left some of the example files in there for now in case I might want to use these to fix some of the other issues. I'll remove these once the rest of the issues have been cured.

 1. lintian: W: supernovas-doc: doc-base-unknown-section supernovas-doc.supernovas:6 libs I ave not found anything relevant online on how to specify section for doc-base. (The supernovas-doc package that generates the warning is itself in the 'doc' section)

 2. lintian: W: supernovas: package-name-doesnt-match-sonames libsolsys1-1 libsolsys2-1 libsupernovas1 Well, the main package is 'supernovas'. I guess it could be renamed to 'libsupernovas', to match one of the libraries. But given it has three, no package name will eliminate this warning. I think that is OK. The solsys libs are provided for legacy applications which linked one or the other to provide implementation for the same 'solarsystem()' call. Mos users will need neither, but some will need one or the other to link and run their programs. Alternatively they could be split into spearate packages, but to me they seem an integral part (by I'm amenable, if you think otherwise).

 3. During the build I get warnings like: dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol novas_error used by debian/supernovas/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libsolsys1.so.1 found in none of the libraries Well, the 'missing' symbol is in the 'libsupernovas' lib that is built sperately. So, it's a false positive really. I can of course complicate the build to make libsolsys1.so.1 and libsolsys2.so.1 depend on  libsupernovas.so.1 and then link against it using the staging location. I think that is overcomplicating it though, so if you don't mind I'll ignore these. There are a few fortran symbols for solsys2.so.1, which must be provided externally. Anyone that uses legacy code that needs these calls would have had to have their implementations. I think it's OK to leave these symbols external. I can maybe add documentation explaining it if that's useful.

4. The debian documentation mentions that shared libraries should also declare their symbols (in my case via 'debian/supernovas.symbols'). However, I have not found a definitive document on how to generate these. I have found a few documents relating to the symbols but they seem to be at odds with one another. So, I'd appreciate any help on how to tackle generating this file.

Other than the above, I welcome an comments / suggestions on improving the package. Once it's looking good, please let me know what's the next step to get it towards releasing it.


Thank you all,

-- Attila.




Reply to: