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

Re: peless-1.125-3 ready

[to the list, again]
-=| Giorgio Pioda, Tue, 29 May 2007 11:06:32 +0200 |=-
> Damyan Ivanov ha scritto:
> > While there, is there a need for that *three* changelog entries for
> > 1.125-x?
> > 
> > Why not simply change the version of the 1.108-1 entry and leave it
> > as is, i.e. simply "initial release". Your package didn't hit
> > Debian yet, so no need to explain the changes.
> You are right. Explanations are not needed, but I used uupdate and
> then I have seen a couple of issues and corrected them repackaging
> and using dch -i. I was a little bored of regenerating all the times
> the debian tree with dh_make and copiing the needed files manually.

dh_make is to be run only *once* - when creating the package skeleton.
Use uupdate when there is new upstream release, followed by
'dch' (without -i) documenting changes done to the packaging. After the
package is uploaded, use 'dch -i' *once* to start new changelog entry.

> >  * I am uncertain, but aren't the checks for BOOST redundant as you
> > have Build-Depends: libboost-regex-dev? I have no strong opinion
> > about this, just wondering.
> Well, just to make it portable on etch is necessary! I can kick out

Then write a comment in debian/rules what has to be changed for the
etch backport.

> this check but then I have to set a static liboost-regex-option=mt
> (otherwise the package doesn't compile) and the source is not
> compilable on etch (where libboost-regex-option='' is needed)... Tell
> me what's your preference. I think, personally, that beiing etch
> "young" we have to make the backport possible.

My preference is that ./configure handles all this stuff, but maybe I
am just daydreaming.
dam            JabberID: dam@jabber.minus273.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: