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

Re: Request Package Review

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 08:22:32PM +1000, Steven Hamilton wrote:
> > You've bumped the debhelper compat version and dependency to 9, but you haven't
> > touched the rules file. I'm just wondering if you are relying on a particular
> > debhelper version 9 feature.
> Is the best practise to only bump the version if you need to?

I believe it is.

> > Looking at debian/rules, I think it would be ripe
> > for rewriting in dh(1)-style, since most of the targets are not customized. I
> > also think that the build steps should be under build-arch or build-indep
> > rather than the build-stamp target.
> Hmmm, I don't know what half of that means since I've never managed to
> get my head around makefiles yet (cmake spoiled me). I guess I have some
> study to do. From what I was reading I thought dh(1) was a separate
> package from debhelper as it's referenced everywhere as being something
> apart instead of part of. Various developer sources say "use dh(1)
> instead of debhelper". I've now found the manpage so again, more study.

Bear in mind this is a "nice to have", not a prerequisite to get a sponsor to
upload the package.

> > You also bumped the standards version, it would be worth indicating this in the
> > changelog (and listing either "no changes necessary" - which I presume is the
> > case since there are no changes ☺ - or a brief list of necessary changes to
> > conform to the newer standard)
> Again, I've assumed that when updating a package we bump to latest
> versions. I guess I've assumed wrongly.

No you're right - but you don't just bump the version, you check to see what has
changed in the latest version of policy and whether any of it applies to to your
package, and make any necessary changes. I scan over the changelog at the PTS,
starting from the old package version and working upwards. 

> Plenty does. Thanks a lot.

You're welcome - thanks for working on the package!

Reply to: