Re: A couple of packaging refreshments for ufsutils
Hi!
On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 12:02:36 +0300, Peter Pentchev wrote:
> What do you think about the attached series of patches that aim to
> refresh the ufsutils packaging a little bit? :)
I've applied few, others not, details below.
> Thanks again for all you're all doing for Debian, and keep up the good work!
Thank you for the patches!
> Subject: [PATCH 01/15] Refresh the patches before the 3.0 (quilt) conversion.
> Subject: [PATCH 02/15] Convert to the 3.0 (quilt) source format.
I had done the the source format conversion for the whole glibc-bsd repo,
before I saw these patches.
> Subject: [PATCH 03/15] Honor CPPFLAGS and LDFLAGS; do not link with CFLAGS.
> Subject: [PATCH 05/15] Remove the duplicate section "utils".
> Subject: [PATCH 07/15] dpkg-dev knows about Package-Type now.
Applied.
> Subject: [PATCH 04/15] Use dpkg-buildflags to get CFLAGS, CPPFLAGS and LDFLAGS.
> Subject: [PATCH 08/15] Move the upstream source comment to the watch file.
Applied with some modifications.
> Subject: [PATCH 06/15] Convert the copyright file to the DEP 5 format.
Not applied for now, until the format stabilizes I don't really feel
like using it. I've dropped the common-license reference in another
commit though.
> Subject: [PATCH 09/15] Bump Standards-Version to 3.9.1 with no changes.
I had already bumped all the glibc-bsd packages to 3.9.2.
> Subject: [PATCH 10/15] Drop the version on the libc0.1-dev dependency.
Not applied, for backporting sake. Also if we were to drop the version,
then the whole libc0.1-dev should be dropeed as it's build-essential.
> Subject: [PATCH 11/15] Shorten the rules file by using the dh(1) helper.
> Subject: [PATCH 12/15] Minimize the rules file by using debhelper overrides.
Not applied, I don't really like the “new-style” dh(1) rules files, to
me they have the same drawbacks as cdbs, although with the addition of
needing the helper to invoke debian/rules to get stuff done...
> Subject: [PATCH 13/15] Bump the debhelper compat level to 8 with no changes.
Not applied, for backporting sake, also I don't think we need anything
provided by such recent version.
> Subject: [PATCH 14/15] Depend on libncurses-dev instead of libncurses5-dev.
I've removed the dependency instead, dpkg-shlibdeps has been
complaining about it for a while now.
> Subject: [PATCH 15/15] Harden the build by default.
Not applied, I'd rather see the safe ones set by default by the build
system instead. Might reconsider later on.
thanks,
guillem
Reply to: