Re: netcdf with new and improved diffs
On Thursday 05 April 2007 12:47, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> One minor point is that the orig.tar.gz of a source package that was
> modified for Debian (even just to repack it) should contain a directory
> named
> netcdf-3.6.2.orig
> rather than
> netcdf-3.6.2
> although anyone downloading the source package with "apt-get source"
> will still obtain a netcdf-3.6.2 directory.
>
> Also, the debian directory (in the diff.gz) should contain a file named
> "README.Debian-source" that describes how the repackaged orig.tar.gz
> tarball was generated from the original upstream tarball. (In this case
> you could basically just copy your second paragraph I quoted above into
> that file :-) Note you don't need to install this file in the binary
> .debs, just in the source package.
I created README.Debian-source with the following text:
The orig.tar.gz has changed from the upstream source. To recreate the
orig.tar.gz from the upstream source, follow these steps.
1) Unpack source in parent directory of prior debianized source.
2) Rename unpacked source directory to oldname.orig (e.g.
netcdf-3.6.2.orig).
3) Cd to source directory (e.g. netcdf-3.6.2.orig)
4) Run "./configure"
5) Run "make distclean"
6) Cd to parent directory
7) The dpkg-source will create the orig.tar.gz for you when you build
> You can find these recommendations in section 6.7.8.2 of the Developers
> Reference:
> http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging-pract
>ices.en.html#s-bpp-origtargz
>
> > I have the netcdf-doc package in this revision. I moved the docs from
> > libnetcdf-dev as well as the html docs into this package. Please check it
> > out.
>
> --> Close #321337 in debian/changelog then?
Done.
> I did look into the -doc package and everything looks fine.
>
> You may want to have libnetcdf-dev Suggest or Recommend netcdf-bin
> and/or netcdf-doc, but this is optional; only do it if you think it's a
> good idea.
Done.
> Linda gives me three warnings, related to the new -doc and -dbg packages:
> > W: netcdf-doc; This package ends in -doc, or -docs, and isn't in Section:
> > doc This package is considered to be a documentation package, but is not
> > contained in Section: doc. This may cause warnings from dinstall when you
> > upload.
>
> --> add "Section: doc" under the netcdf-doc stanza in debian/control
Done.
> > W: netcdf-dbg; Long descriptions contains short description.
> > The long description of this package contains the short description.
> > This is a bad idea, as the long description should be long, and not
> > just reiterate the short description.
>
> --> This warning I think can be ignored, since you just have the short
> description as part of a complete sentence in the long description.
I changed it to:
Description: debugging symbols for NetCDF
This package contains the files that make it possible to debug the
NetCDF binaries and programs that use the NetCDF libraries with a
source-level debugger like gdb.
I also Suggested gdb for the dbg package.
> > W: netcdf-dbg; There is no Depends: line in the control file.
> > The package has no Depends: line in the control file. This is not
> > allowed by Policy if the package in question contains binary objects.
> > Perhaps try calling dpkg-shlibdeps or dh_shlibdeps in the package
> > rules file.
>
> --> Have netcdf-dbg Depend upon "libnetcdf4 (= ${binary:Version})"
> --> Also, please give netcdf-dbg "Priority: extra" in debian/control
done
> I think that overall the packages are in great shape, despite my
> nitpicking. Please fix the points mentioned above, change the version
> number to 3.6.2-1, and I will be happy to upload to experimental. Thanks
> again for taking on this important science-related package; there cannot
> be too many maintainers of science packages in Debian!
I will upload a 1~pre8 for you to check out first. In fact, it's already
posted if you wanna look at it. I have also posted the new orig.tar.gz.
> Finally, a couple ancillary questions:
>
> The change of your maintainer address to the penguintechs dot org
> address is intentional, right?
Yes. That is my personal address.
> During the build, there are a lot of error messages of the form
> "warning: enumeration value ‘NC_NAT’ not handled in switch". Is this
> something that could be a problem? Maybe upstream would best know the
> answer to this...
First of all, they are warnings. Upstream says the errors were also in 3.6.1
or before. They don't seem to cause any functional problems. I have
scientists using 3.6.2 compiled and installed into /usr/local as we speak.
wt
--
Warren Turkal (w00t)
Reply to: