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

Re: ITR: wmanager (update, adopt, fix bugs)

On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 07:04:25PM -0600, Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 02:02:06PM -0600, Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 06:44:23PM +0200, Peter Pentchev wrote:
> > > Dear mentors,
> > > 
> > > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.2.1-3 of the "wmanager"
> > > package; I am hereby attempting to adopt it, fix its two bugs, and bring it
> > > up-to-date with the Debian policy and the modern world in general :)
> > 
> > I will review your package. You made quite a few changes, so it might
> > take me several days.
> Ok, my (very few) comments:
> 1. You have in debian/rules
>  build: patch build-stamp
>  build-stamp: debian/control $(MAN)
> and
>  clean:  clean-patched unpatch
>  clean-patched: debian/control
> That's bad, because those rules might fail if the package is ever
> built with -j, since they don't enforce patching before building and
> cleaning before unpatching.
> Please change them to something like
> build: patch-stamp build-stamp
> build-stamp: debian/control patch-stamp $(MAN)
> and 
> clean: debian/control
>        [commands ...]
>        $(MAKE) -f debian/rules unpatch

Done, see below for the updated package.

However, there just might be a problem here - not with wmanager itself,
but a more general problem.  I pretty much copied those rules from the
dpatch manual - the "DPATCH IN DEBIAN PACKAGES" section.  The examples
given there will not work with parallel make either.

Should a bug against dpatch be filed to update the manual?  Or should we
wait until people come to at least some sort of agreement on the
parallel make issue before filing any bugs and making changes? :)
(yeah, I guess you can tell I've been following the parallel make
discussion on debian-policy ;)

> 2. It would be nice to pass along at least the makefile patch
> upstream. Now, upstream does not seem to be very active. Is that
> because of lack of bugs, or a lack of upstream? If the second case is
> true, you will be having to act as _de facto_ upstream. Are you
> willing and able to do this? I'm not raising an objection here, I just
> want you to state it explicitely.

Actually I intend to pass *all* the changes upstream - some as bugfixes
(the C++ build fixes), some as recommendations (my reworked Makefile),
and some as simple suggestions (the system-wide wmanagerrc that was
already in the Debian package).  I've still not tried to contact Meik
Tessmer just because I wanted to wait until the patches are settled -
both here in the Debian package and in the FreeBSD port of wmanager that
I will also adopt.  So, basically, at this point I don't know if the
upstream author is active :)

On to your actual question - yes, if the upstream author turns out to be
inactive, I do intend to take up maintainership of wmanager, both the
Debian package, the FreeBSD port, and the "upstream" sources themselves.
It is already in my Subversion repository (the Vcs-svn control field
points to it), with the Debian and FreeBSD changes integrated as far as
possible, and I intend to keep it that way.

> 3. Will you be wanting to keep debian/rules as is, or are you planning
> to migrate to some helper package? If the second, be aware that I'm
> not willing to sponsor cdbs based packages. I don't understand it and
> I'm not really willing to learn it. Thus, I'd politely recommend ;)
> you use debhelper.

Well, I myself like debhelper very much, and both my local packages
(most of which will never see the light of day for work-related reasons)
and the timelimit package that I've RFS'd recently are all done using
debhelper.  With wmanager, the situation is somewhat weird - Tommi
Virtanen actually used it in the past, but dropped it in version 0.2-4
seven years ago.  We'll see - there's a very good chance that I will
reintroduce debhelper at some point instead of doing things by hand
(like the md5sums file creation).  In this version, I just wanted to
deviate as little as possible from Tommi Virtanen's work.

> Other than that, your package is very nicely updated, so as soon as
> you do the patching rules fixes, I can sponsor this version.

Thanks a lot! :)  I uploaded an updated version to mentors.debian.net -

The only change is in the debian/rules file; no revision bump, no new
changelog entries, since this falls under the "Switch to dpatch" entry
that I already added at the very start.  I saw your message earlier
today about naming interim uploads ~1, ~2, etc., but IMHO this is not
needed in this particular instance; I'll keep it in mind for the future,

Once again, thanks a lot for the time you took to review this, and for
spotting the parallel make issue!


Peter Pentchev	roam@ringlet.net    roam@cnsys.bg    roam@FreeBSD.org
PGP key:	http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc
Key fingerprint	FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E  DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553
No language can express every thought unambiguously, least of all this one.

Attachment: pgp5AwoO9vflG.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: