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

Re: [ucko@debian.org: Bug#705382: flexbar: FTBFS on unsupported architectures]

Hi Tony,

sorry for the longish (vacation associated) delay.

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 02:51:20PM +0100, Tony Travis wrote:
> On 23/04/13 17:16, Tony Travis wrote:
> > [..]
> > I've changed the Architecture and updated the package to use your new
> > upstream source tarball as Andreas recommended. I'm testing it locally,
> > and it all seems to be working OK. I'll commit the debian files to the
> > svn repository that we are using and ask Andreas' advice about how to
> > submit an updated "flexbar" package to Debian-Med correctly.
> Hi, Andreas.
> I've built and tested the new Flexbar v2.33 package locally, and
> committed my changes to the svn trunk/debian for "flexbar".

Regarding your changelog entry:  Please do NOT replace old changelog
entries.  You should use the command

  dch -i

to create new changelog entries for new package versions.  I have fixed
this in SVN.

You also changed the debian/control file to close bug #705382.  This
needs to be mentioned in debian/changelog and the bug should be closed
(done in SVN and commited).
I also documented the change in debian/copyright properly in

I'm not yet convinced about your change of debian/flexbar.1.  Looking


I see the following problems of the new file:

  NAME section just says nothing in the new version while the old one
       has a proper description.  What should be the content of the
       NAME section is given in DESCRIPTION which is plain wrong
       (just try `man ls` for comparison)

  SYNOPSIS is lacking the .SH flag

  DESCRIPTION (the *real* description) is also lacking the .SH flag
       (as most of the other following section)

  SEE ALSO is a boilerplate of help2man if you forget to add the
        --no-info option (I really wished this option would be
        the default - seems FSF is never giving up advertising
        their info format)

I'm not really sure but if I remember correctly how I created the
manpage in Kiel than I think to remember that I did (more or less) heavy
manual changes to the file after using a draft from help2man.  If you
try to rerun help2man blindly this will not lead to a better manpage.  I
have no idea whether it is easier to maintain the once existing manpage
manually or create s script that fixes help2man output afterwards.
Kind regards


PS: Did you talked with upstream author about 32-bit builds and if yes
    would you include i386 and powerpc into the list of available
    architectures because libtbb-dev exists on all these architectures?


Reply to: