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

Re: RFS: gearmand



Patrick Matthäi wrote:
> Monty Taylor schrieb:
>> I have fixed that, and have uploaded a new version to mentors. Upstream
>> released a new version today which fixed some of the problems I'd found
>> in packaging the first time.
> 
>> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gearmand/gearmand_0.6-1.dsc
> 
> * debian/control:
> - There are some ${shlibs:Depends} missing

fixed.

> - Why are you using direct depends on libfooX (=) instead of
> shlibs:Depends?

Because I suck. Fixed.

> * debian/rules:
> - Do you realy need chrpath? Have you tried out the configure option
> --disable-rpath?
> - If you want to use chrpath, you have to build depend on it

Hrm. Apparently not. That makes me happy - I can remove this from
another package as well.

> * debian/gearman-server.init:
> - What happens if /var/run is not present/mounted on a ramfs?

I think this is fixed - lemme know what you think of the changes.

> * debian/libgearman-dev.lintian-overrides:
> - Are you sure that this file is needed?

Nope. In fact, it's not needed. I _was_ during 0.5 and I just forgot to
remove it. Fixed.

> lintian:
> Please patch the manpage:
> I: gearman-client: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign
> usr/share/man/man1/gearman.1.gz:10
> I: gearman-client: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign
> usr/share/man/man1/gearman.1.gz:16
> I: gearman-client: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign
> usr/share/man/man1/gearman.1.gz:22
> .. and get sure that you use a patch system for your changes ;)

Fixed.

> Also:
> I: libgearman-dev: arch-dep-package-has-big-usr-share 6588kB 94%
> 
> You might split up the package in an arch any and arch all one.

I was considering making a libgearman-doc package with all the API docs
in it. If I do that, should I go the whole doc-base route? How did you
get lintian to spit out the arch-dep-package-has-big-usr-share error?
Mine isn't doing that...

New version with all but arch-dep-package-has-big-usr-share fixed has
been uploaded.

Thanks!
Monty


Reply to: