On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 02:38:44AM +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> Le mardi 20 mars 2007 04:17, Paul TBBle Hampson a écrit :
>> Dear mentors,
> Hi !
>> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "openjpeg".
> Some basic comments:
> * debian/rules: you should remove uneeded call to dh_ stuff. Also the
Fixed, thanks. Thanks.
> ## shared library versions, option 1
>> version=1.0.0
>> major=1
> stuff does not seem right, and version is not the one provided..
The soversion is 1.0.0 in the build I have here... What'd it come up
with for you?
>> ln -s libopenjpeg-${version}.so dist/libopenjpeg.so
> This does not seem right too...
Uh, that's so that the included binaries link against the shared-object.
The link is removed two lines later.
> * debian/control: there is a typo in one description. Also, you should rename
> libjpeg2000-utils to something like jpeg2000-utils since this package does
> not provide any lib..
Hmm. I was going off the example of libgd-utils and libjpeg-tools, as
well as Junichi Uekawa's packaging guide, but I will take openjpeg-tools
under consideration. (Assuming that's what you meant, not that I rename
the entire thing to *jpeg2000*.)
Fixed the cut and paste oversight, thanks.
> * debian/copyright: You repeated copyright for licence, these are different
> sections.. Also download source should be a webpage or a ftp site, but not
> the tarball.
Strange. Policy requires a verbatim copy of the copyright and license,
and that's verbatim from the website.
I've fixed this by removing the "License" seperator and the first set of
copyright statements, so it's now both verbatim and doesn't describe the
copyright holder's list as the license.
As for the upstream URL, the copyright FAQ [1] states that should be the
URL for the upstream source... That could be clearer, they obviously
mean the _other_ "source". Fixed, thanks.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/03/msg00023.html
> * In the diff.gz: your modifications to source should be kept as patch and
> applied at build time. This way they'll remain into the debian/ directory.
> Also, you may check wether you could build the package without those
> modifications...
I'm not going to apply dpatch to something so trivial. The number of
DD's who dislike dpatch is significant enough that I don't feel this
package is changed enough to require it, and make someone else's life
harder down the road for the sake of 6 changed lines.
The package _builds_ without those changes, but isn't policy-compliant.
(ie. the stuff in libopenjpeg-tools ends up statically linked, and the
debug version of the library ends up stripped. The 'mv' change will go
away, the preceeding change should be sufficient)
> And... You have a nice FTBFS for amd64:
>> /usr/bin/ld: ./libopenjpeg/bio.o: relocation R_X86_64_32 against `a local
>> symbol' can not be used when making a shared object; recompile with -fPIC
>> ./libopenjpeg/bio.o: ne peut lire les symboles: Mauvaise valeur
> As written in the message, you have to pass the -fPIC option at build time..
The debian/rules file builds it firstly without -fPIC, as Debian policy
requires that .a objects are build without it, and then rebuilds with
-fPIC to generate the .so. I didn't realise it was going to fail to
build in that instance...
I've changed it so it doesn't _try_ to build the .so file the first time
'round.
New package will be uploaded once it's out of pbuilder.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul "TBBle" Hampson, B.Sc, LPI, MCSE
On-hiatus Asian Studies student, ANU
The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361)
Paul.Hampson@Pobox.Com
Of course Pacman didn't influence us as kids. If it did,
we'd be running around in darkened rooms, popping pills and
listening to repetitive music.
-- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.1/au/
-----------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
pgpzBtrxPD6Pw.pgp
Description: PGP signature