Re: RFS: lwjgl
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 2011-05-06 23:53, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> Niels Thykier wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA256
>>
>> On 2011-05-06 21:36, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>>> Michael Gilbert wrote:
>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I pushed this lwjgl update to git a while back but haven't heard
>>> anything. Would anyone be so kind as to review and sponsor?
>>> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/lwjgl
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Hah
>>
>> I guess, I forgot to CC you then [1].
>
> Oh, oops. I've addressed the issues you pointed out. See recent git
> commits. Thanks again!
>
> Mike
>
So, turns out I was wrong about javahelper - the package uses
jh_installjavadoc in its override_dh_auto_install, so now it FTBFS.
Though please note that you are missing a jh_clean in the clean
rule/override_dh_auto_clean.
Also while you have added the B-D for jutils.jar none of the packages
have any relation to said package. As far as I can tell jinput needs
jutils, but jinput does not have any classpath. If lwjgl needs jutils
directly (mind you, I do not know if this is the case), then lwjgl needs
a Depends on jutils as well.
Otherwise, if jutils is in the classpath in d/rules as a workaround
for the missing classpath in jinput, please file a bug against jinput
about this and document in d/rules why jutils is listed in classpath.
This ought to have been a part of my original review, but I did not
notice jinput did not have a classpath then.
~Niels
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=Yn7e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: