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

Re: RFS: concordance



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Please keep debian-mentors@l.d.o in CC.

Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre schrieb:
> Patrick,
> 
>> * debian/control:
>> - - Why are you adding manualy library depends?
> 
> Stuff I forgot to remove, since it would get taken care of by
> misc:Depends and shlibs:Depends, afaik.. Am I correct?

shlibs:Depends is for the shared lib. depends.

> 
>> * debian/copyright:
>> For the following files you missed to list the license/copyright holders:
>>        libconcord/win/usb_rtl.h
>>        concordance/ltmain.sh
>>        libconcord/ltmain.sh
>> And you are again pointing to the wrong licensefile.
>>
> 
> Yikes. I guess it's my fault for building this with a find and not
> double-checking  carefully enough.
> 
>> * debian/rules:
>> Uhm what's this? cdbs with debhelper style rules? Use cdbs and read the
>> documentation how to modify it or use debhelper without cdbs.
>>
> 
> Here's where I'm really stuck: I was following the Ubuntu packaging
> guide to the best of my comprehension, and it seemed like it was more
> or less what was recommended. In any case, I'm trying to make it use
> just cdbs now. Is that the right way to go for someone who's
> relatively new to packaging?

In my opinion cdbs is easier for beginners if the package easily builds
with the three configure, make {install} steps, which is not the case here.
Also with cdbs you may miss the understanding of the dh_* helpers.

> 
> Also, the source I have to deal with is a little complicated: there
> are different parts, all under different subdirectories with their own
> configure/Makefile, and no master Makefile to work with. As such, so
> far autotools.mk just won't work. I'm trying to figure out a way to
> make it go to each of the subdirectories and then run configure, make
> and all. Any hints on where to look? A simple cd under

I think a debhelper based solution would be better in your case.
Have e.g. a look in the rules of the package apt-dater, there is a
simmilar situation.

>> * debian/patches/*:
>> - - Missing patch description.
>>
> 
> Isn't that just the name of the patch that is a little to general? If
> not, where would that description go? I can't find anything about it
> in the New Maintainer's Guide.

Just wrote it in the header of the patch introduced by a #


> 
>> * debian/*.dirs:
>> - - Useless files, see dh_install(1)
> 
> Thanks for all the feedback!
> 
> / Matt


- --
/*
Mit freundlichem Gruß / With kind regards,
 Patrick Matthäi
 GNU/Linux Debian Developer

E-Mail: pmatthaei@debian.org
        patrick@linux-dev.org

Comment:
Always if we think we are right,
we were maybe wrong.
*/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkomSMkACgkQ2XA5inpabMePtQCfczlrGGuK5EeqzZDb7QuX+KUZ
rsoAn3UTPpxduxS8F0DF2d1SVWzcVBUE
=3xgR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Reply to: