On 11/27/2015 01:30 AM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: > Hi Ross, > > On 25-11-15 23:27, Ross Gammon wrote: >> I have nearly finished a new upstream version of osmgpsmap (just >> pushed). I have run out of steam for today, but I thought I would >> push it anyway in case you would like to do (have time/energy to >> do) a quick review. > >> Tomorrow I will do a test install, and do a final check of the >> packaging. > >> It will need to go into experimental as there was a SONAME bump & >> there is at least one reverse dependency to check. > > I don't expect breakage from the SONAME bump, only symbols added. As > long as none of the reverse dependencies rely on the removed YAHOO > sources. gnuais only uses the OPENSTREETMAP source, so that looks good. > > codesearch found an embedded copy of osm-gps-maps in darktable, it may > be worthwhile to file a whishlist bug requesting to switch to the > packaged library (if it actually uses the sources it includes). > > Since the package will have to pass NEW because of the SONAME bump, > additional renames are not an extra pain. Consider dropping the > SOVERSION from the -dev & -dbg packages again to no need renames of > these every SONAME bump. gnuais build depends on > libosmgpsmap-1.0-0-dev, so it will need a change before it can be > built with the new version also, might as well change to just > libosmgpsmap-1.0-dev. > > The removal of m4/gtk-doc.m4 by debian/clean is annoying in > combination with git-buildpackage. The removal may not be required > when using plain autoconf, so consider switching to dh-autoreconf > because gnome-common is deprecated too: > > https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GnomeCommon/Migration > > Enabling parallel builds with dh $@ --parallel is a good idea too if > it doesn't break too many things. Thanks Bas. My sid VM was busted, so that wasted yesterday evening. Unfortunately I am busy today and tomorrow, so I will take a look at that and your commits on Sunday probably. I need to study what you did with the symbols to better prepare for my promise to draft something for the policy (something to do at Christmas!). After I pushed and went to bed the other night, I realised that I should probably look into whether we still need the "Provides". That was done earlier when creepy & subsurface were also Reverse Dependencies. But I will re-look in the light of what you say about the package names (both Andreas and I thought it was overly complicated way back anyway). Cheers, Ross
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature