Re: RFS: luabind
Thanks a lot for review :)
> * The only available download in the SF.net project website is
> «luabind-0.7.zip», which is different than your orig (no examples
> nor documentation, for example). It would be a good idea to explain
> how did you get it and why (README.Debian?).
I download the only aivalable luabind-0.7.zip on sourceforge.net ,
which included examples and documentation, did you get the last update ?
> * In debian/rules:55 there is a `find' that you could probably avoid.
> Note that dh_fixperms fixes most of the permissions for you already.
> The only problem is that it doesn't recognize .hpp header files,
> but that should be fixed in the next version of debhelper (see
> #404785). In the meantime, you can use a simple chmod. Also, note
> that the value should be 644 and not 666 (important!).
Fixed thank you :)
> * According to the description, it is written towards Lua 5.x, but the
> package is compiled against 5.0. So, as far as I know, it will not
> work with Lua 5.1. It would be a good idea to update the description
> to reflect this issue. It should also be possible to provide packages
> for both 5.0 and 5.1, but that would require more changes... Is it
> worth it?
I first tried to compile it for lua 5.1, but there were some missing
macro, I'm going to try again.
> * In the changelog, you should use «Closes:» instead of «Close:».
> 2. http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/footnotes.html#f17
> * Upstream's build system is insane and outdated, but it would be even
> better if you provided your changes as a patch (using quilt, for
> example) IMHO.
I also first tried to patch the orig makefile, but I think a libtool
based makefile is a better choice, to generate a dynamic library.
Moreover, only 3 short files are required to generate all the build
chain, so the diff.gz is still "clean". I think I'm going to send a
patch to upstream authors, to propose them this build system for next
I'm going to add a README.Debian to explain why I've remade the build
system and updated examples.
> I'm sorry, but I'm not a DD ;)
Thanks a lot again :p
Thank you for your time, Arthur.