Re: help with lintian output
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Moved from debian-user to debian-mentors because it seems to be the
better place for the issue. Please be so kind and CC me in case of a
reply, because I'm not on it and gmane doesn't have it yet =)
Florian Ernst wrote on 01.04.2005 22:19:
| Hello *,
|
| On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 08:30:57PM +0200, Roman Stöckl-Schmidt wrote:
|
|>| W: lilypond source: native-package-with-dash-version
|>This is of course true but I don't understand why this should generate a
|>warning because the majority of files from the main tree have a name of
|>the form $packagename_x.y-z_$arch.deb
|
|
| x.y denotes the upstream version, while z is the Debian revision.
|
| In a native package there is only a single version like a.b, and the
| source only consists of a .tar.gz and a .dsc as the package is natively
| built for Debian.
| Non-native packages consist of upstream's .tar.gz, where the program
| in question is not specific to Debian, Debian's changes in a .diff.gz
| and a .dsc. Changes in the Debian way of packaging will raise the
| Debian revision.
I admittedly still don't understand then why I get this warning because
I built the package from a tarball at lilypond.org which just happens to
have a debian subdirectory with the files for an older package (probably
2.2.6 which is the latest in debian). So I guess lintian complains about
the filename of the tarball that debuild made which indeed does contain
a dash, but debuild takes that dash from the changelog (I guess) and if
I didn't have a dash in the changelog then it would also not be
policy-conform, or would it?
The line in the changelog is
| lilypond (2.4.5-1) unstable; urgency=low
and I did this with dch in compliance to the older (some also NMU) entries.
|>| W: lilypond source: changelog-should-mention-nmu
|>How exactly am I supposed to indicate that it's a Non-maintainer upload?
|
|
| I didn't look up how exactly lintian checks for this, but this is
| probably related to the following.
|
|
|>| W: lilypond source: source-nmu-has-incorrect-version-number 2.4.5-1
|>What does this warning actually refer to? The upstream version is 2.4.5
|>so 2.4.5-1 for debian should be okay, shouldn't it.
|
|
| That's OK for a maintainer release, i.e. a release the official
| maintainer as listed in debian/control has put together. IOW, the
| entry from debian/control matches the name from the changelog entry.
|
| A non-maintainer upload adds another digit to the Debian revision,
| e.g. a NMU for a new upstream release could be 2.4.5-0.1, or a NMU for
| x.y-z is x.y-z.1, a second NMU thereafter is x.y-z.2...
Okay so in my case I should name it 2.4.5-1.1, got it.
|>Thanks for any suggestions as always. And before I get any RTFM shouts,
|>I realize I haven't read the appropriate sections of the policy manual
|>yet and will do so soon but I don't think it's too overbearing to
|>request help for now.
|
|
| Debian Policy Manual, Developer's Reference and New Maintainers' Guide
| explain all this in detail. Additional question are possibly best asked
| on the debian-mentors list.
Advice followed. =)
| BTW, Thomas has just recently adopted lilypond and is now working,
| among other things, on an update. See #300609 for reference.
I've read all the concerning bugreports and I've also seen how long some
of these have been 'out there' so I just decided to take my fate into my
own hands, besides, I figured I might learn something.
Don't get me wrong I'd be more then happy to see lily being picked up
again and when there are new official packages available I'll use those,
but I just don't want to be using 2.2.6 and the 2.4.2 that Pedro Kroeger
built is not 100% clean. So I just thought that if it doesn't work right
I might just as well try to do it better.
I'm only building it for the convenience a deb package provides and
primarily for my personal use, I'll also put it only for other people
who may want it when I'm confident it won't do something terribly evil... =)
Thanks for your help, Roman.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCTc0tn0kyIx7rF68RAtIhAJoCQA5eejrwHl3fsFHigq4utP2szgCggHxL
wrb7cwQwAAdQTIDifxK3DgY=
=Y/Hl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: