Re: Packaging Ray for Debian Med
Hi !
The Ray Debian package is now at
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=debian-med/ray.git;a=summary
I fixed everything that lintian reported except these:
W: ray-extra: unusual-interpreter ./usr/share/ray/scripts/plot-color-distributions.R #!/usr/bin/Rscript
W: ray-extra: unusual-interpreter ./usr/share/ray/scripts/plot-coverage-distribution.R #!/usr/bin/Rscript
W: ray-extra: unusual-interpreter ./usr/share/ray/scripts/plot-library-distribution.R #!/usr/bin/Rscript
r-base-core installs /usr/bin/Rscript so it is legit.
Maybe /usr/bin/Rscript should be added in
/usr/share/lintian/checks/scripts (package lintian)
Using /usr/bin/env Rscript also throws unusual-interpreter.
See below for my specific answers.
On 11/02/2012 01:58 PM, Andreas Tille wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 12:42:23PM -0400, Sébastien Boisvert wrote:
The Debian project is really organized, I like that a lot !
:-)
For ray debian/2.1.0-3, I will do these 4 things:
1. Add Tim Booth for the packaging copyright
I would also suggest to add him in debian/control as follows:
Maintainer: Debian Med Packaging Team <debian-med-packaging@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Uploaders: Sébastien Boisvert <sebastien.boisvert.3@ulaval.ca>,
Tim Booth <tbooth@ceh.ac.uk>
In the Debian Med team we are using the team mailing list as maintainer
so everybody gets informed about uploads, bugs etc. It is easy to add
other uploaders (people feeling responsible and adding code to the
packaging).
Done.
2 Restore HAVE_LIBBZ2=y and HAVE_LIBZ=y somewhere
Otherwise, the code that uses libz and libbz2 are not compiled at all.
Is there a better place than the rules file ?
Finally, this was not necessary because Tim's patch did not remove this --
I misread his patch this morning.
No, the rules file is perfectly the correct way to specify this. The
only nitpicking I have is that you should please remove the "Sample
debian/rules ..." comment template - your rules file is simply no
sample, right. ;-)
Maybe I can add a patch against the Makefile directly ?
What do you think ?
The result will finally be the same and it is rather a matter of taste.
I would leave it in debian/rules because in a patch it might be a bit
more hidden. If you prefer a pretty clean debian/rules file a patch
is fine as well.
3. Split in 3 packages: ray (Ray + man), ray-doc (Documentation directories), ray-extra (scripts)
Ray really just needs mpi-default-bin and bz2 and z libraries for the runtime.
The provided scripts should go in ray-extra.
As I understand, I can put several packages in the control file,
Yes, your split sounds very reasonable.
and possibly tell in the rules file where each file should go.
Is that right ?
You could use override_dh_install in debian/rules however, I (strongly)
prefer using files named
ray.install
ray-doc.install
ray-extra.install
which organise the moving of files in a more transparent way. Just
have a look into
man dh_install
how it works.
Using the <package-name>.install did the job easily. Thanks.
4. move man.1 in a patch in patches
Just to be pedantic to what is provided in the upstream tarball.
Usually we are keeping freshly written manpages in
debian/*.1
and install these using a file ray.manpages containing just this string
(see dh_installman). A patch would be fine as well but editing a plain
file is way more comfortable than handling a patch and it is easier to
point upstream to a plain file when asking upstream to include this file.
I added debian/Ray.1 that is simplier than a patch.
Keep on your good work and feel free to keep on asking if something else
might remain unclear
My question: what's next ?
I think debian/2.1.0-4 should do it, unless you have other suggestions, in which case
I will gladly implement them.
Andreas.
--
Sent from my IBM Blue Gene/Q
Reply to: