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

Re: [MoM] ProbABEL packaging



Hi Andreas,

On 12-12-13 09:32, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Lennart,
> 
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 09:20:39AM +0100, L.C. Karssen wrote:
>> Hi Andreas,
>>> Sorry, what is "dquilt"  - I only know quilt (without the d in the
>>> beginning)?
>>
>> dquilt is an alias for quilt created in sections 3.1/3.2 of the URL
>> mentioned above:
>>  alias dquilt='quilt --quiltrc=/home/lennart/.quiltrc-dpkg'
> 
> Ahhh, it is a long time ago I've read the docs. ;-)  It is always good
> to talk to people who did it recently. ;-)))

:-).


>  
>>> I restored the original upstream source in commit
>>>
>>>    f102ee1d3141be3bba95e16d90f59bc5e9f9d01c
>>>
>>> I also have used `cme fix dpkg-control` (see
>>>
>>>    e1c851706593ea122cfb1240c639f7670408e141
>>>
>>> ) which I (strongly) recommend to anybody doing some packaging today.  It
>>> just does "the right thing" (tm) with your d/control file. :-)
>>
>> And drags in a whole bunch of dependencies, wow :-). I agree d/control
>> looks better now.
> 
> While it looks better it actually does not drag something additional in
> - just reformatting dependencies to have only one per line.  

I meant that installing the packages libconfig-model-dpkg-perl
libconfig-model-itself-perl also drags in a whole bunch of other
packages (at least when using aptitude install, apt-get might have been
more restrictive).
Anyway, not a big deal.


> I think it
> is a good idea to settle on this standard.  Just learned it myself a
> couple of monthes ago and this is the first thing I'm doing with any
> old package ...
>  
> 
>>> By doing so I tried to build the package again but I was running into
>>>
>>> make  check-TESTS
>>> make[3]: Entering directory `/tmp/buildd/probabel-0.4.1/checks'
>>> make[4]: Entering directory `/tmp/buildd/probabel-0.4.1/checks'
>>> /bin/bash: /bin/bash: cannot execute binary file
>>> make[4]: *** [check_probabel.pl_chunk.sh.log] Error 126
>>> make[4]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/probabel-0.4.1/checks'
>>> make[3]: *** [check-TESTS] Error 2
>>> make[3]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/probabel-0.4.1/checks'
>>> make[2]: *** [check-am] Error 2
>>> make[2]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/probabel-0.4.1/checks'
>>> make[1]: *** [check-recursive] Error 1
>>> make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/probabel-0.4.1'
>>> dh_auto_test: make -j1 check returned exit code 2
>>> make: *** [build] Error 2
>>> dpkg-buildpackage: error: debian/rules build gave error exit status 2
>>>
>>>
>>> So it seems the change has introduced a problem with the reconfiguration
>>> since if you do
>>>
>>> $ git diff
>>> diff --git a/debian/rules b/debian/rules
>>> index 4ece2fa..970e910 100755
>>> --- a/debian/rules
>>> +++ b/debian/rules
>>> @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ GIT_TAG        := $(subst ~,_,$(VERSION))
>>>  # a similar manner are welcome.
>>>  
>>>  %:
>>> -       dh $@  --parallel --with autoreconf
>>> +       dh $@  --parallel
>>>  
>>>  override_dh_installdocs:
>>>         dh_installdocs
>>>
>>>
>>> the build works again.
>>>
>>> Hope this gives some useful hints

This is caused by using the new automake 1.13, which uses the parallel
test-suite by default, instead of the old serial one. I've committed a
quick fix, upstream fixed it more extensively.

>>
>>
>> I'll have a look if I can find what's missing.
>>
>> By the way, when running debuild I get several lines like:
>>    awk: cmd. line:1: fatal: cannot open file `debian/gbp.conf' for
>> reading (No such file or directory)
>> I guess this comes from the variable you try to create in the default
>> rules file. I guess the d/gbp.conf file is missing in your default SVN
>> debian/ dir. What's supposed to be in that file?
> 
> I personally would remove the variables which are not needed in the
> rules files which means remove them all except DEBPKGNAME.  They are
> just inside the template as an option - perhaps I should put them in
> comments.  I *personally* do not have any debian/gbp.conf file in my
> packages because I'm a fan of keeping things as simple as possible and
> additional files are not making anything simpler.  But as I said git and
> git-buildpackage are not my best skills and so I can only quote our team
> policy
> 
>    http://debian-med.alioth.debian.org/docs/policy.html#debian-gbp.conf
> 
> where this specific paragraph was written by Charles Plessy.
> 
> In short:  I would drop all unneeded variables from the rules file and
> be done.  Feel free to pick a better solution that might fit your
> workflow best.

Ah, thanks for mentioning Charles' text. I gues I missed it before. For
now I've commented the unused variables.


Lennart.

> 
> Kind regards
> 
>        Andreas.
> 

-- 
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
L.C. Karssen
Utrecht
The Netherlands

lennart@karssen.org
http://blog.karssen.org
GPG key ID: A88F554A
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: