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

Re: ANNOUNCE: usfda-ndc-drug-info v0.4

Hi Andreas,

Thanks for you help.

Andreas writes:

> Some hints here.
> You just provided a *.dsc and a *.diff.gz file to enable building
> the Debian package from source.  This intention is right but you are
> missing the file usfda-ndc-drug-info_0.4a.orig.tar.gz which is
> mentioned in the *.dsc file.  Normally it would be sufficient to do
> a
>   ln -s usfda-ndc-drug-info-0.4a.tar.gz usfda-ndc-drug-info_0.4a.orig.tar.gz
> at least it is the sense to provide a identical copy of the original
> source file in the orig.tar.gz file.  But I tried this and the
> orig.tar.gz file seemed to be different because
>   ~> dpkg-source -x usfda-ndc-drug-info_0.4a-3.dsc
>   dpkg-source: error: file usfda-ndc-drug-info_0.4a.orig.tar.gz has size 2143315 instead of expected 2143507
> But I did not give up this far.  I just "hacked" your *.dsc file to
> match md5sum and size of the other tar.gz file and was able to
> unpack the source now.

I ended unpacking the original and moving the whole directory over to
an "orig" directory, like this:

      tar xzf usfda-ndc-drug-info-0.4a.tar.gz
      mv usfda-ndc-drug-info-0.4a usfda-ndc-drug-info-0.4a.orig
      tar xzf usfda-ndc-drug-info-0.4a.tar.gz

This made the diff automatically which I prefer since I'm also
providing the original sources and it seems redundant to provide:


> Here are my hints to the packaging:
>   0) You do not need to provide a file named
>         <package>_<upstreamversion>-<packageversion.orig.tar.gz
>      at sourceforge but you should definitely make sure that your build
>      is done with an absolute identical source file.  Just use the symbolic
>      link as I did above.

To my understanding, this normally only works on the *-0 or *-1
release as you mention in (1) below. Good point, however.

>   1) Reading your changelog I suspect the reason:
>      usfda-ndc-drug-info (0.4a-3) unstable; urgency=low
>        * Updated to new minor release.
>       -- Elizabeth Barham <lizzy@soggytrousers.net>  Mon, 12 May 2003 22:18:55 -0500
>      This is WRONG.  A valid changelog entry would be:
>      usfda-ndc-drug-info (0.4a-1) unstable; urgency=low
>                                ^ THIS IS IMPORTANT
> 	* New upstream release.
>           (Well this is not *really* necessary, but the usual
>           phrase.  It does not matter how small the upstream change
>           is.  It is just a new upstream source which should be
>           provided in a new orig.tar.gz file and thus the
>           <packageversion number should be 1.

>    2) Regarding to some lintian warnigs.  You should always check your package
>       using
>             lintian *.dsc *.deb
>       If you do not know what the warnings and errors mean try "lintian -i"
>    a) W: usfda-ndc-drug-info source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.5.2
>       Well, just use
>          Standards-Version: 3.5.9
>    b) E: usfda-ndc-drug-info source: build-depends-without-arch-dep
>       This is a very interesting case which is caused by the hint I gave
>       you to compile the tools to build the package.  We definitely should
>       discuss this topic on debian-devel.  In my opinion the lintian warning
>       is right in general but wrong for your package.  I have currently no
>       idea how to solve this.
>    c) W: usfda-ndc-drug-info: description-synopsis-might-not-be-phrased-properly
>       Simple thing: Just remove the full stop "." character in the end of the
>       short description.  This is for some reason expressed in the policy.
>       Check "lintian -i" for a longer description.
>    d) W: usfda-ndc-drug-info: copyright-lists-upstream-authors-with-dh_make-boilerplate
>       Also simple: If you are the "only author" than please use
>         Upstream Author: Elizabeth Barham <lizzy@soggytrousers.net>
>       (Remove the "(s)" from boilerplate.)
>    e) W: usfda-ndc-drug-info: postinst-should-not-set-usr-doc-link
>       This is because you seem to build with older build devscripts and I
>       use a newer lintian.  Nothing to do here, because debhelper cares
>       for the issue right. I'm working on an up to date testing system.
>    -> In general this are a very view simple things so far with exception of
>       2b) which has to be discussed:


> I tried to apply the changes and to recompile the package
> checking for libxml - version >= 2.0.0... no
> *** Could not run libxml test program, checking why...
> *** The test program failed to compile or link. See the file config.log for the
> *** exact error that occured. This usually means LIBXML was incorrectly installed
> *** or that you have moved LIBXML since it was installed. In the latter case, you
> *** may want to edit the xml2-config script: /usr/bin/xml2-config
> checking for gawk... gawk
> checking for tr... tr
> checking for cat... cat
> configure: error: could not link against db3

My guess this is due to my not providing a build dependency on
libdb3++ (= 3.2.9-16) and libdb3-dev?

The libxml error seems a little more dire as I'm using the aclocal
script that came with the package and it #include's:

#include <xmlversion.h>

as where in Debian, this should be

#include <libxml/xmlversion.h>

> Obviousely there are build problems I can not solve currently.  I
> have collected the things I would change in the debian dir and all
> files from the build run which were created on my machine in the
> archive
>      http://people.debian.org/~tille/lizzy/usfda-ndc-drug-info-0.4a_problems.tar.gz
> Just have a lock into config.log to track down the build problems.
> Feel free to ask further questions to solve the problem.
> Kind regards and thanks for your fine work


I'll give it another go a little later on.


Reply to: