Re: copasi is ready for upload
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 10:33:05AM +0100, Ivo Maintz wrote:
> Copasi is ready in svn to the first upload. One strange behavior:
> svn-buildpackage didn't work for me, while debuild did the job.
> svn-buildpackage seams to NOT unpack the sources, so dpkg-source nags
> for "deleted" files. But, as already mentioned, debuild works...
I inspected the package and have the following comments:
0. Please file an ITP bug using
and follow the reportbug advises. It is a good idea to
do this on a machine that can send mails. If not available
here you should save the mail in the end and can send it
manually via some webmailer to email@example.com
If there are unreleased versions please tag them using
'UNRELEASED' as target distribution. This is described
in our policy document in paragraph 'Subversion tips'.
Usually you can find the policy document here but
the machine is currently down. You might fetch it from
Google cache by seeking for "Debian Med Policy" and look
for a cached version.
Please everybody put this document under your pillow!
Once you have succeeded filing the ITP bug this bug gets
a number and you should close this bug in your latest
changelog entry which says:
* Initial release (Closes: #????)
Please note: "New upstream version" in a changelog entry
does not make any sense from a debian/changelog perspective
for packages which were never uploaded to Debian at all.
So alternatively to the target 'UNRELEASED' as mentioned
above you can savely delete the older changelog entry
because it has no relevant information for anybody. This
would be different in case you might cooperate with other
maintainers to let them know what you changed on this not
yet released packaging.
Please delete the dh_make template comments - I do not
think that Joey Hess and Craig Small did something on this
actual file, right? ;-)
Further hint: Using cdbs is fine in principle. However,
specifically for beginners I'd strongly recommend dh which
drastically simplifies things. I also have seen your
'all-in-one-patch' which seems to contain "intended"
patches and those which just happens when autotools are
soing their nasty work.
Please try to separate this. Packages builded like this
are asking for troubla if trying to build twice in a row.
To prevent this you are very well advised to use
as Build-Depends and use
dh $@ --with autoreconf
in your rules file - which implicitely means to drop the
cdbs approach which I would recommend anyway in cases like
I always try to follow successful examples in the past and
in this case I would recommend to inspect the exonerate
package (as long as SVN is down try 'apt-get source exonerate')
This approach is much more safe for autotools based packages
4. Finally, as we discussed please use pbuilder to test your
packages. The first thing I was running into when calling
using pbuilder was
dpkg-source: info: building copasi in copasi_4.8.35-1.dsc
test -x debian/rules
mkdir -p "."
make: autoconf: Command not found
We just discussed that there are other dependencies missing
and we agree that it probably need some time to sort out the
libsbml dependency - but what I wrote above is generally
valid and hopefully helpful for anybody.
As an additional remark: The way you obtained the source seems
to be a bit complex. Please clarify the following things:
1. Please *inform* upstream that if a Debian package is created
everybody has a quite simple way to obtain the source from
Debian mirrors and undermines the download policy of upstream.
While the license perfectly permits what you are doing it
is fair enough to ask upstream what they think. If they
agree it is fine but on the other hand if their means to
provide the tarball can be undergone it might be logically
to that they put the tarball simply on their web page which
in turn makes things simpler for us as well.
2. The fact that the tarball is not that easily available might
be a reason to commit your packaging to our Git repository
because this comes with packaging *and* source which seems
convenient for other people in the team.