Re: New version of ray
On 2014-02-04 04:29, Andreas Tille wrote:
Hi Sébastien,
Hi Andreas,
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 01:23:09PM -0600, Sébastien Boisvert wrote:
>you initially packaged ray which now is available in a new version[1].
I know, I am the maintainer ;-).
:-)
>Would you mind upgrading the packaging or simply throw an ENOTIME
>to let
>others step in?
Following the documentation [1], I imported the newest tarball and
made some changes in
debian/.
I checked out the recent status and noticed that you did not described
your changes properly inside debian/changelog. As you can see I have
fixed the changelog (please `git pull`) to describe all *my* changes
which are affecting this upload. You also should mention that the new
upstream version has incorporated the patch we used for the previous
version and thus the patch was removed. I suggest something like
* new upstream version
(previous patches removed since applied upstream)
I added this.
would do. You should also remove the debian/patches dir since it is
just distracting others if there is an empty patches dir.
I removed the patches directory.
Regarding your changes in debian/rules: There is no real point for
CPPFLAGS=$(shell dpkg-buildflags --get CPPFLAGS)
CXXFLAGS=$(shell dpkg-buildflags --get CXXFLAGS)
since this is default of dh anyway and I also wonder what
might be the motivation for
CXXFLAGS+=$(CPPFLAGS)
These 3 lines were removed -- I did not know that this was the default
behaviour. Thanks.
Is the upstream build ignoring $(CPPFLAGS) and you just sneek this in
that way? Nat that I would have a real problem with this - I'm just
curious.
I got those warnings though:
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: package could avoid a useless dependency if
debian/ray/usr/bin/Ray was not linked against libdl.so.2 (it uses
none of the library's symbols)
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: package could avoid a useless dependency if
debian/ray/usr/bin/Ray was not linked against libopen-pal.so.0 (it
uses none of the library's symbols)
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: package could avoid a useless dependency if
debian/ray/usr/bin/Ray was not linked against libutil.so.1 (it uses
none of the library's symbols)
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: package could avoid a useless dependency if
debian/ray/usr/bin/Ray was not linked against libnsl.so.1 (it uses
none of the library's symbols)
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: package could avoid a useless dependency if
debian/ray/usr/bin/Ray was not linked against libopen-rte.so.0 (it
uses none of the library's symbols)
It is safe to ignore these warnings. Ubuntu is forcing the --as-needed
linker options which makes them go away. I usually ignored it since
I'm
not sure whether there are any side effects of the --as-needed option.
dh_installdeb
dh_gencontrol
dpkg-gencontrol: warning: Depends field of package ray-doc: unknown
substitution variable ${shlibs:Depends}
Architecture 'all' packages do not need the ${shlibs:Depends} variable.
I removed this since it is not needed.
dpkg-gencontrol: warning: Depends field of package ray-extra:
unknown substitution variable ${shlibs:Depends}
Same here.
I also removed this.
dpkg-gencontrol: warning: Depends field of package ray-extra:
unknown substitution variable ${python:Depends}
I'm not really sure what helper really creates these python:Depends.
I guess it is save to ignore these warnings.
Is it safe to remove ${python:Depends} since it is an unknown
substitution in the context ?
I tagged it with debian/2.3.0-1 in git [2].
Could you please remove the tag (also in the central repository) since
some changes were made before the real upload will be done.
I removed my local tag as well as the remote tag.
Thanks for your work on this in any case
Thank you for your guidance and mentorship.
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: