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

Re: Status of libsonlib



Hello Andreas,

>    I think the way to finalise libsonlib would be to find out whether
>    there are any sensible binaries in /usr/bin and leave these (if
>    they are not just tests) and may be write some manpage (using
>    help2man - no real effort to write it manually!)

None of these binaries are useful other than for the context of the test
suite (that gets invoked by dh_auto_test). Tests as these are also
denoted within a variable in C/Makefile called "testProgs". They get
linked to cuTest.a (which gets installed under /usr/lib although I found
out that marginphase's test suite uses cuTest.a too so removing it might
not be suitable in this case).

> I stopped for the reason that my original target signalalign needs a
further dependency:
>
>    https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/python-servicecourse
>
> This should be a proper Python Module but upstream has just thrown
> three files into the root dir of the archive.
>
> Possibly this can be fixed by some simple setup.py to profit from
> pybuild - but may be moving those files manually might be possible as
> well.  I simply stoped here and since my final target signalalign
> seemed to complex I left sonlib as well since I was not sure whether
> the packaging finally works that way.

Ahh, I see. A bit of a nuisance :/.

> If you have some other target that needs libsonlib it would make
> perfectly sense to continue that effort and check whether that
> target builds with the current libsonlib - if not fix it. ;-)

Thanks!

Kind regards,
Shayan Doust


On 22/06/2020 15:12, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Shayan,
> 
> you asked about the packaging status of libsonlib since you need it for
> marginphase.  I pushed something which somehow creates some binary
> package containing some header files and a static library.
> 
> It builds if you uncomment the building of libquicktree-dev[1]
> (or just checkout commit fe426a6598742190616d848b8a06773b570106f1)
> 
> However, the libsonlib packaging is not yet "sensible" in the
> following ways:
> 
> 1. There are installed some binaries under /usr/bin which seem to be tests only.
> 
>    While the build time test works the autopkgtest is just a pure
>    boilerplate == non-functional.
> 
>    I think the way to finalise libsonlib would be to find out whether
>    there are any sensible binaries in /usr/bin and leave these (if
>    they are not just tests) and may be write some manpage (using
>    help2man - no real effort to write it manually!)
> 
> 2. Inside the autopkgtest reproduce compiling the test tools and run
>    the tests.
> 
> 
> I stopped for the reason that my original target signalalign needs a further dependency:
> 
>    https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/python-servicecourse
> 
> This should be a proper Python Module but upstream has just thrown
> three files into the root dir of the archive.
> 
> Possibly this can be fixed by some simple setup.py to profit from
> pybuild - but may be moving those files manually might be possible as
> well.  I simply stoped here and since my final target signalalign
> seemed to complex I left sonlib as well since I was not sure whether
> the packaging finally works that way.
> 
> 
> If you have some other target that needs libsonlib it would make
> perfectly sense to continue that effort and check whether that
> target builds with the current libsonlib - if not fix it. ;-)
> 
> Kind regards
> 
>       Andreas.
> 
> 
> [1] https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/quicktree
> 

Attachment: 0x6D7D441919D02395.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: