On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:09:37 +0200 Paul Gevers <paul@climbing.nl> wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1:0.95.0-2.2 > of the package "lesstif2", this is not my package but I thought it > needed some attention. This is a big package with a high popcon count, do you have the time for such a large task? On your own? Is there any upstream activity? > lesstif-bin - user binaries for LessTif > lesstif-doc - documentation for LessTif > lesstif2 - OSF/Motif 2.1 implementation released under LGPL > lesstif2-dev - development library and header files for LessTif 2.1 > > The package is not completely lintian clean. > paul@etna ~/build/sid $ lintian -I -E --pedantic lesstif2/lesstif*.deb > X: lesstif-bin: spelling-error-in-binary ./usr/bin/mwm dont don't > I: lesstif2: no-symbols-control-file usr/lib/libMrm.so.2.0.1 > I: lesstif2: no-symbols-control-file usr/lib/libXm.so.2.0.1 > W: lesstif2: package-name-doesnt-match-sonames libMrm2 libXm2 > paul@etna ~/build/sid $ lintian -I -E --pedantic lesstif2/lesstif*.dsc > W: lesstif2 source: outdated-autotools-helper-file config.guess > 2005-05-15 W: lesstif2 source: outdated-autotools-helper-file > config.sub 2005-05-12 The PTS claims 85 lintian errors and warnings, so that is a considerable advance. The spelling error appears trivial and the autotools ones are new, there was an announcement about those on debian-devel regarding problems with new architectures (and, for that matter cross-building) when these files are so out of date. autoreconf will sort those out - you could try it in debian/rules but be aware that updating such an old package could cause new bugs so it might be best to do the entire refresh thing upstream. > I intend to take those on in the next round, although I am not sure if > the package deserves a rename. Probably easiest done upstream - doing a new SONAME gives you complete freedom in the upstream source to make sure that bugs are fixed cleanly. This would add a significant amount of work to the upstream though. It's not a rename necessarily - the package contains two libraries, you could split those out. $ objdump -p ./lesstif2-0.95.0/debian/lesstif2/usr/lib/libXm.so.2.0.1 | sed -n -e's/^[[:space:]]*SONAME[[:space:]]*//p' | sed -e's/\([0-9]\)\.so \./\1-/; s/\.so\.//' libXm2 $ objdump -p ./lesstif2-0.95.0/debian/lesstif2/usr/lib/libMrm.so.2.0.1 | sed -n -e's/^[[:space:]]*SONAME[[:space:]]*//p' | sed -e's/\([0-9]\) | \.so\./\1-/; s/\.so\.//' libMrm2 Those aren't particularly suitable library names, so you may want to use a lintian override for now and use a more sensible name in a future upstream release - again, a large step for a package of this size. > The current maintainer was not sure in > the brief discussion I had with him (my only successful communication) > and at the moment I think it is too intrusive. The warning about the > outdated-autotools-helper-file are new I believe, I didn't see them > last month. Probably the way this package builds has to be > reengineerd. > > The upload would fix these bugs: 43640, 314440, 330057, 356017, > 396199, 479779, 496081, 503361 (and not in the changelog also bug > 522157, where the original debdiff is found) > I would be glad if someone would give feedback or upload the package. It's good that it does build in pbuilder. There needs to be a quick, easy way of testing the package - is there a script or internal program that can be run or a simple way of writing a test program? What needs to be done to run stuff in the test/ directory? It doesn't use 'make check' (which appears to do nothing in particular). It's probably too big for me to push much further, I don't have time for that much testing. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/
Attachment:
pgp4yvzpeGZZG.pgp
Description: PGP signature