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

Re: PostGIS 2.1.4

On 09/25/2014 04:21 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> The Breaks/Replaces was only needed because different versions of the
> liblwgeom-2.1.2 package contained conflicting files.
> Now that the package is liblwgeom-2.1.4 there is no longer a conflict.

Ah, right. Thanks. Corrected.

>>> I've also changed liblwgeom-2.1.4.install & libpostgis-java.install to
>>> use
>>> 2* instead of the full version numbers
>> Oh, that works? Nice!
> Yes, wildcards are supported by dh_install, making life much easier. :)

I now realize it's just the .install files, not .symbols. Which would be

Given I just stumbled over a "2.1.4dev" version for the JAR for this
release, I only used a ? wildcard, so this would still catch the bogus
"2.1.4dev", rather than silently match. Committed and pushed.

>>> mh_cleanpom caused a FTBFS in my builds because of the invalid
>>> whitespace
>>> at the start of java/jdbc/pom.xml. I added a patch to remove this
>>> whitespace.
>>> http://git.linuxminded.nl/?p=pkg-grass/postgis;a=commitdiff;h=a86c253d21f982d0e1c81472ede745e6454a2b89
>> Thanks. It didn't FTBFS on my testing machine. Which I'm just upgrading,
>> now. It FTBFS on pgapt/jenkins.
> Chances are good the FTBFS on pgapt is caused by mh_cleanpom if it uses
> current sid build environments. I wanted to check the build logs, but I
> don't have a login for the pgapt jenkins.

Yeah, the logs seem to indicate that problem. I just triggered another
build. You can ask Christoph Berg <cb@df7cb.de> if you want permission
to the pgapt/jenkins service.

> We can use some more wildcards, but we also need a lot of separate license
> specifications for individual files.
> For doc/* CC-BY-SA-3.0 should be used, but there are some differently
> licensed files under the doc directory (mostly Makefile templates).
> The autotools script have different authors, copyright years and licenses,
> requiring a lot of extra license specifications.
> There has been some debate about what to document in the copyright file
> triggered by the recently introduced lintian checks for dep5, that was
> mostly about generated files from autotools.
> The relevant documentation is:
> https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#copyright-field
> And the related policy sections:
> https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-dpkgcopyright
> https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile
> https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-pkgcopyright
> The policy doesn't specify much other that that the verbatim copyright and
> license needs to be included.
> The copyright-format specifiction says:
> "The Copyright field collects all relevant copyright notices for the files
> of this paragraph. Not all copyright notices may apply to every individual
> file, and years of publication for one copyright holder may be gathered
> together. For example, if file A has:"
> So it's possible to more group files with the same license even if the
> copyright is not identical between the files.

Thanks for all these pointers. I'll dig through those later today.

I understood you're currently working on it? Please feel free to push to
the git repo.



Reply to: