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

Re: Fwd: RFS: powder/117-2 ITA

Barry deFreese writes:

> On 6/5/2013 4:56 AM, Steven Hamilton wrote:
>> On 02/06/13 21:11, Steven Hamilton wrote:
>>> Barry deFreese writes:
>>>> I am assuming since you removed Windows binaries that you repacked the tarball? If so you need to
>>>> create a new version of the tarball.  Trying to extract the source of your current package I get the
>>>> following:
>>>> dpkg-source: error: File ./powder_117.orig.tar.gz has size 1891043 instead of expected 1780754
>>> Thanks Barry, package updated and reuploaded.
>> Attempt #2. Source +dfsg'd and reuploaded. Now uploads and unpack fine (on my machine at least)
> Steve,
> Couple of quick things.
> 1.  In debian/watch, you should mangle the debian version to remove the dfsg.  Look an man(1) uscan
> for examples of how to do that.

Noted. I'll work on this next.

> 2.  Why do you have a clean: target instead of just using override_dh_clean: ?  It also seems very
> strange to me that you are removing .h and .cpp files.

Changed to override. These .h .cpp files are dynamically generated
during build time to suit the platform being built for. They have to be
removed during the clean process. Hence the override with the weird
looking deletions.

> 3.  In debian/rules it is probably easier to just import buildflags. (Actually I think dh 9+ does
> this for you?)  Look at:  http://wiki.debian.org/HardeningWalkthrough

Doesn't work. Not all of the needed buildflags are imported and they
also don't pass to the build script. I tried lots of different way of
doing this and the current effort proved the cleanest.

> 4.  Because you are using source format 3.0 quilt, you don't need to
> build depend on the quilt package.


> 5.  debian/copyright seems to be missing copyright and license for mt19937ar.c.

Copyright file reworked.

> Other than that, the package seems to build and run fine.

Great, I'll get on with that watch file next.

Steven Hamilton
I don't look like two zombies

Reply to: