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

Re: opencpn (was: opencpn: binaries without source)


Most of your remarks seems easy enough to handle. However, I wonder
about a few. Let's take them first:

On 25/11/18 14:58, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:

>    There has been no upload of the package yet, so the +dfsg
>    repacksuffix is sufficient, the .1 should be stripped.

What about [1]? What's the reason to not comply with this?

>    The opencpn-plugins package depends a manual version, it should
>    ${binary:Version} instead.

Isn't this the merge case #6 in [2]? Where the version is hardcoded?

>    Why is the get-orig-source target used? The bugreport mentioned is
>    not clear.

The short story is that a plain uscan doesn't work, and that this is a
known problem. It seems to be related to large sources generated with
something else than a recent gnu tar. The work-around is basically to
unpack and repack with gnu tar at which point things can proceed as usual.

>    Why add an override for the javascript files when they can be
>    excluded from the repacked upstream tarball?

Because all other things removed are supported by build system patches
which have been upstreamed. Patches for removing these files will never
be accepted, and likely a pain to maintain.

BTW: Upstream has released a new version and also, at last, tagged the
releases. Updating to the new version using tags is a no-brainer, but I
need some clarification on open issues here before I go ahead with that.




[2] https://wiki.debian.org/PackageTransition

Reply to: