Re: ARB 6.0.2-2 package
Hi Elmar,
thanks for your work on Arb.
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 05:29:32PM +0200, Elmar Pruesse wrote:
> I've just committed my changes to SVN. It ended up being quite a lot.
> Since this is my first maintainer experience I don't know how to proceed
> from here. I'd appreciate greatly if someone could have a look at what
> I've done.
>
> Things that I'm unclear about:
>
> - There was an incompatible change to the PT server file format.
>
> What should be done in the preinst script with the old, incompatible
> files? In all use cases that I can think of, they can be deleted. They
> are merely indices computed from the users' data that is cached because
> index computation takes rather long.
If they do not serve any purpose it is fine to delete them.
> - How do I push the package to "unstable/sid"?
Pinging the list that the package is ready and a DD (probably me) will
build the package and upload.
> - Did I put the desktop integration files into the right places and the
> right package?
>From just looking at the debian/*.install files it looks OK.
> - How important is it to make ARB "XDG compliant" in the way it places
> it's user specific data? And what's the precise difference between
> "XDG_DATA_HOME" and "XDG_CONFIG_HOME"?
I admit I have no idea about XDG. I'd say if Arb users will be able
to fire up the programm according to your estimation that's fine.
I tried to build the package using pdebuild but this failed in the end
due to the usage of
dh_install --list-missing
It turns out that some files are left behind:
dh_install: arb_install.sh exists in debian/tmp but is not installed to anywhere
dh_install: lib/GPL.txt exists in debian/tmp but is not installed to anywhere
dh_install: lib/Makefile exists in debian/tmp but is not installed to anywhere
dh_install: lib/arb_tcp_org.dat exists in debian/tmp but is not installed to anywhere
dh_install: lib/arb_tcp.dat exists in debian/tmp but is not installed to anywhere
dh_install: lib/addlibs/addlibs.readme exists in debian/tmp but is not installed to anywhere
# the check is needed to make sure it will not fail when doing binary-arch only builds
and if you think this is OK so far you should probably drop the
--list-missing option.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: