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

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

On 29/11/18 20:10, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> On 11/29/18 9:33 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
>> 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?
> That's just one of the forms that can be used, and one which we don't
> use for any of our packages.

OK, local habits, fair enough.

>>>    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?
> While specifying the minimum version required it sufficient, it's
> cleaner to have inter dependencies use the version of the package.

Same  again, then. OK.
>>>    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.
> Plain uscan will work with the release tags.

Not for me, uscan  --force-download  crashes after downloading the git
repo.  I have reverted to the github template in the uscan manpage just
to eliminate other errors:

"filenamemangle=s%(?:.*?)?v?(\d[\d.]*)\.tar\.gz%opencpn-$1.tar.gz%" \
    https://github.com/OpenCPN/OpenCPN/tags \
    (?:.*?/)?v?(\d[\d.]*)\.tar\.gz debian uupdate

Using devscripts 2.18.7 on sid. Have you actually a working watch file,
or other reasons to believe the bug report is bogus?

>>>    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.
> You don't need patches to remove those unused files, you add them to
> Files-Excluded in debian/copyright.
> If the patches to use packaged versions of those projects won't be
> accepted by upstream, mark them as Forwarded: not-needed.

They will not, full stop. And the maintenance problem is obvious. Do you
still insist that using patches + exclusions in the tarball is a better
idea than to just drop them in install? If sou, could you please expand
a little on the motives?


Reply to: