[dropping Barry from CC because he is subscribed] On Fri, 03. Oct 15:43 Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda <leo@alaxarxa.net> wrote: > Hi, > > > I'm working on the ode package. I will try to propose a upload next week. > However, after look at the package I have some doubts that I would like to > comment: > > - libode has libccd embed. I did a petition to extract it to upstream and make > a check to use the external version, if not the internal one, but no answer. Hi, If you can use the shared system library without breaking ode, that would be preferable. But if this is not possible for whatever reasons, better document it in README.source with a link to the corresponding upstream bug report. > The build system is autotools and I'm not so expert to make a patch. So, can > we provide libode with this code embed? We have been doing this for the past five years, so probably the answer is yes but...(see the paragraph above) > - Upstream has changed SONAME. Also, we have had two packages, one with single > precision test and another with double precision. I think that we could drop > the single precision package and release the double precision as default in > 64bit arch and single precision in 32bits arch. What do you think? A SONAME change means changing the name of the binary package too. That would require a transition for all reverse dependencies but the timeframe for transitions is already closed for Jessie. Of course you could upload a new version to experimental. About single- vs. double precision: Your suggestion sounds reasonable but are there any r-deps that still require the single-precision package? Why was this package created in the first place? > - I think that we can drop dh-autoreconf. It was introduced in the previous > version, not released in debian. I would prefer it, because not, recreate the > autotools files and it's a mess when the devscripts make the diff with the > orig version. What do you think? dh-autoreconf is usually the preferred method when building packages with autotools. I suggest to convert debian/rules to dh-sequencer and to use the --with autoreconf option. I don't understand the last sentence. Shouldn't dh_autoreconf_clean remove all files that are recreated during the autoreconf step? > > - Someone knows why 0.12 was never uploaded to unstable? Sorry, no idea. Probably the usual lack of time to complete the upload. Regards, Markus
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature