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

Re: RFS: ed2k-hash

Hash: SHA1

Oleksandr Moskalenko ha scritto:
> Also, there is a "debian" dir in the upstream package on sf.net. Even if you
> were the upstream it would still a bad idea to ship "debian" in the original
> tarball, but since you are not upstream then repackaging the orig.tar.gz to
> remove that debian dir makes sense in this case.

Should I remove it or not?
I'm not the upstream author, so I'm not supposed to touch in any way the
orig.tar.gz. No?

> See the output of $dpkg -L ed2k-hash:

Yes, I already checked that before sending my last reply :-)

> Oh, darn. I started figuring it out and before long had to rework the
> packaging a lot mainly due to a seriously screwed up build system from the
> upstream. I'm not sure I would bother if I knew what was in store. Anyway,
> hours later here is the result:

I already had some results using dpatch (and, seeing your work, you used
it too!).

Just a question: in my debian/rules I've put

include /usr/share/dpatch/dpatch.make

while in your debian/rules I read:

    dpatch apply-all
        touch $@

    dpatch deapply-all
        rm -rf patch-stamp debian/patched

which one is the most convenient way? Just to be sure on what to use in
the future. I believe the first (mine) is more "generic", but yours is
more concise. Are they the same? (/me goes to see what
/usr/share/dpatch/dpatch.make has inside)

Secondly, I've put everything which was to be deleted into a single
.dpatch file, and directly edited the files (so dpkg-source handles the
diff itself), while you deleted them by hand (maybe refactored the
orig.tar.gz?) and put the changes into different .dpatch's.

Thirdly, it seems like my autotools always regenerate ./configure.
Should I diff from the upstream one, or from the "debianized" one?
They're quite different (in fact, even with your patches, the
compilation stops because is looking for debian/Makefile*...)

I'll fix my package, and upload it again to mentors as soon as I figure
it out (see previous mails for the link).

> Take a look. If you agree with my changes and promise to take care of the
> beast from now on I can upload your package.

Yes, I promise.  :-P
I also have intention to package the other ed2k-tools and, eventually,
make a meta-package to install them all.

> Regards,
> Alex.

Thanks for your help,

- --
         Linux Registered User #334216
Get FireFox! >> http://snipurl.com/gofoxygo/ <<
Blog         >>  http://www.hanskalabs.net/  <<
Staff        >> http://www.debianizzati.org/ <<
Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


Reply to: