Le mercredi 08 décembre 2010 à 22:21 +0100, Etienne Millon a écrit : > (no need to CC me, I am subscribed to the mailing-list) > > On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 04:04:09PM -0500, Jean Schurger wrote: > > Yes, i don't know what to do with that. I should not use the > > 'unodcumented' because i've understood that it is/will be deprecated. > > > > And i have no "manual" for that on the software sources. > > Is there a template of manual that i can use ? > > You can for example learn from an existing manpage (they are text > source files). There are plenty of them in /usr/share/man :-) > > You can also use a "compiler" that will produce a manpage from a > (simpler) description. I've used pandoc (packaged in Debian) which > does the job. > > Once it's done you should send the manpages to upstream, too. > > > > - dpkg-shlibdeps seems to complain about useless dependencies on > > > > > > libfontconfig.so.1 > > > libatk-1.0.so.0 > > > librt.so.1 > > > libgio-2.0.so.0 > > > libcairo.so.2 > > > libpango-1.0.so.0 > > > libgmodule-2.0.so.0 > > > libgthread-2.0.so.0 > > > libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 > > > libfreetype.so.6 > > > libpangoft2-1.0.so.0 > > > > > > Those come from your Makefile which calls "pkg-config --libs > > > gtk+-2.0". I am not sure about the best solution for this one. > > > It's only a warning, though. > > > > > > > Yes, i was knowing that too, the Makefile is part of the sources, > > should i patch it to prevent thoses links ? Free42 is linked > > "indirectly" to those libraries as they are gtk+ dependencies, and > > free42 use gtk+. > > If there's actually a way to build in a cleaner way (and remove > explicit dependencies), you should patch the upstream sources. As > you're using the new "3.0 (quilt)" format, it means recording a patch > and putting it in debian/patches. You can do that by hand (tedious), > or directly with quilt. If you are using a "higher level" system > (git-buildpackage, …), there should be a direct way to do that, too. > Upstream will probably be happy to merge this patch in their next > version, too (once again, assuming that it's not a false warning). > Thanks, i'll fix thoses two issues. What's the 'good' way to ask to review an update of a package like this one ? I should continue to dput it as replacement, and ask in that thread ? -- Jean Schurger http://schurger.org GPG: http://schurger.org/jean.asc
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part