Re: possible package adoption -- aprx
On 05/20/2015 02:50 PM, Colin Tuckley wrote:
> On 20/05/15 19:06, Chris Knadle wrote:
>
>> Just FYI I had a look at the upstream project, and there's no newer
>> version of aprx
>
> I checked that too.
The releases for aprx are fairly seldom, which isn't necessarily a bad
thing.
>> The f4fxl-core file in the upstream tarball looks to me like
>> it's a core dump... that's probably shipped in the tarball erroneously.
>
> Agreed, I'll probably email upstream about it together with a few odd
> things I've found in the man pages that upset Lintian.
>
> I've also bumped the Standards Version (again) and will check any
> consequences.
Okay.
> The only thing that needs a more careful look is the Lintian warning
> about "init.d-script-missing-dependency-on-remote_fs".
Yep, I see it after building the package. $remote_fs just needs to be
added to debian/aprx.init directly (no quilt patch needed because it's
in the /debian subidrectory). After fixing that the only error left is
the f4fxl-core file, but there's a couple of more pedantic warnings that
could be fixed:
$ lintian -E --pedantic aprx_2.08.svn593-1.1+0cdu0_amd64.changes
P: aprx source: source-contains-prebuilt-binary f4fxl-core
E: aprx source: source-is-missing f4fxl-core
P: aprx: no-homepage-field
W: aprx: extra-license-file usr/share/doc/aprx/LICENSE
W: aprx: manpage-has-errors-from-man usr/share/man/man8/aprx-stat.8.gz
2: warning: macro `LO' not defined
W: aprx: manpage-has-errors-from-man usr/share/man/man8/aprx.8.gz 2:
warning: macro `LO' not defined
But the main thing is that someone needs to try running the package to
see if the program actually works.
-- Chris
--
Chris Knadle
Chris.Knadle@coredump.us
Reply to: