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

Re: MIA upload

Hi Gert,

On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 04:58:09PM +0100, Gert Wollny wrote:
> Hello,
> I've uploaded the MIA package to git.debian.org/git/debian-med/mia.git

Great.  As you might have noticed I did some changes - please check out
the commit logs.
> This package provides real image processing funcionality and is the
> biggest package I'm currently preparing. i.e. this is the one that
> should probably end up in on of the tasks files.

I guess candidates would be mia2-bin for imaging and libmia-2.0-dev for
imaging-dev right?  From my personal taste I would prefer mia2-tools or
even mia-tools (I personally do not see a need to duplicate the version
number in the package name - but perhaps there is some good reason for
it).  I just have the feeling that '-bin' is quite rarely used and
'-tools' is somehow common for tools using the library features.

Moreover the shotr description of mia-2.0-dev is not optimal.  It would
be better to have some short explanation in it rather than refering to
the package featuring the dynamic library and thus forcing the reader to
dig into the description of another package.
> To compile you need the latest Debian unstable, because it requires
> libvistaio-dev, which was just uploaded, and libnlopt-dev (>= 2.3)
> that was also only uploaded two days ago (main reason for this
> dependency is that it fixes #695659).

Its default to use latest unstable for building packages anyway.
> Currently, the package has two lintian-overrides:
>  * package-name-doesnt-match-soname
> After some consideration I decided that it really doesn't make much
> sense to split the librraies into different packages: MIA uses
> plug-ins and command line program - and lots of them, Splitting the
> libraries would mean sorting out which plug-in /command line program
> requires which library in the *.install files. To make this without
> specifying each file separately would require rethinking the whole
> module naming scheme, and this is something I wouldn't want to do
> right now.

That's OK.
> * hardening-no-fortify-functions
> Initially this error actually made me fix the compilation flags, but
> there are still a lot warnings left.
> Most of them are memset, memcpy, and memmove, and according to
>   http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=673112
> they should probably ignored.


> Since I integrated the changes needed to satisfy lintian, I created
> a new upstream version. Should I update the ITP bug?

There is no real need to do so.  The sense of the ITP bug is to inform
other developers that you are working on this.  This is not changed by
the fact that a new version is out.

I tried to git-buildpackage mia and got:

$ git-buildpackage
dh clean --parallel
   dh_testdir -O--parallel
   dh_auto_clean -O--parallel
   dh_clean -O--parallel
gbp:info: Orig tarball 'mia_2.0.7.orig.tar.xz' not found at '../tarballs/'
paranoia check failed on params from delta (-z -9) at /usr/bin/pristine-xz line 195.
pristine-tar: command failed: pristine-xz --no-verbose --no-debug --no-keep genxz /tmp/pristine-tar.eIfAuN7sWh/wrapper /tmp/pristine-tar.tATBi4qGo1/mia_2.0.7.orig.tar.xz.tmp
pristine-tar: failed to generate tarball
gbp:error: Couldn't checkout "mia_2.0.7.orig.tar.xz": /usr/bin/pristine-tar returned 255

$ git branch
* master

Kind regards



Reply to: