Re: [fis-gtm] Updating fis-gtm to V6.2-001
On 01/23/15 03:30, Andreas Tille wrote:
Hi Amul,
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:34:44AM +0000, Shah, Amul wrote:
[amul:3] While I diagnose the issue with #775302, I thought it prudent to not hold V6.2-001. Please consider this version ready for sponsoring.
OK.
[amul:3] I checked https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tracker.debian.org_pkg_fis-2Dgtm&d=AAIBAg&c=3BfiSO86x5iKjpl2b39jud9R1NrKYqPq2js90dwBswk&r=9ssj4QMqXvXerR0OPzrgsqFDldUsqMEK5X4uhRXsy2Q&m=193k-07vNc2YIahOZdLPKMv-1MIWcoyauQdbs1XU248&s=f8o_NnFxekHRHlZ_A7NTkULyUO93jHeWGheJaaSFjRU&e= for the latest status and saw that the standards version has increased. Should I change it?
Yes. A package targeting at unstable (== not bound to the smallest set
of modifications to reach the frozen Jessie) should comply with the
latest standards version and in close to all cases this is simply done
by bumping the version number. The most easy way to do this is
cme fix dpkg-control
[amul:4] Changes committed, please take a look.
which does this for you besided some checking of your (Build-)Depends.
(See policy manual about what packages to install to enable cme.)
I think fis-gtm is already compliant with the standards change. There is also a lintian error (see below) for the 32bit version which doesn't seem right since we always build with -fPIC. I'll see what happens on a 32bit machine and correct it.
* shlib-with-non-pic-code
usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/fis-gtm/V6.2-000_i586/libgtmshr.so
Hmmm, no idea about this - if you are concerned about this I'd suggest
to ask on debian-mentors@lists.debian.org.
[amul:4] I'll try that thanks.
Amul
_____________
The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you.
Reply to: