Re: RFS: libaosd (updated package)
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 20:11:47 +0300, Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Eugene Paskevich
<eugene@raptor.kiev.ua> wrote:
I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.2.6-1
of the package "libaosd".
As promised on IRC, here is a review:
First of all I'd like to thank you for your time and help!
As you started reviewing this package does it mean that
I have found a sponsor and now should note appropriately in m.d.n?
Why did you add the libaosd-text-dev package?
The reason for splitting out libaosd-text-dev from libaosd-dev is mainly
because libaosd-dev could be used standalone without the -text lib and
header.
In the current state it is possible to have aosd-text.h installed without
the actual libaosd-text.so library installed, which is definitely wrong.
Policy 3.9.1 is out.
Updated.
You could mention in the changelog that the maintainer agreed to
transfer maintainership of the package to you.
Updated.
Please run tagpending before uploading packages to mentors.
Ran now.
Are you aware of the abi-compliance-checker package? It would be great
if you could use it upstream to ensure you do not break the ABI. There
is also this service based on that tool:
http://linuxtesting.org/upstream-tracker/
Now that you told me about it, I am, thank you. :-)
I have run the check 0.2.5 vs 0.2.6 and
for both libaosd and libaosd-text the verdict was: Compatible.
As upstream, do you have any comments on #464744?
I was going to comment in that bug directly once the package is uploaded.
Why did you drop this line from debian/rules?
rm -f config.sub config.guess
I'm not sure why they are there to begin with.
These files are in orig tarball and are replaced with debian ones.
Why do they have to be removed on clean?
If you contact the openSUSE maintainer to ask them to update the
package, you might want to get them to change the source package
description, which is currently a copy of their libcaca source package
description. aosd_cat also is obviously not written in C# :)
Thank you, I'll try to contact openSUSE maintainer.
The upstream build system hides the build commands, usually we prefer
that they are shown so that looking at the build logs allows people to
debug issues more easily.
Fixed with a patch.
Some complaints from automated tools:
lintian:
I: libaosd source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field
"section" in package libaosd2
I: libaosd source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field
"section" in package libaosd-text2
Fixed.
I: aosd-cat: copyright-with-old-dh-make-debian-copyright
I: libaosd-dev: copyright-with-old-dh-make-debian-copyright
I: libaosd2: copyright-with-old-dh-make-debian-copyright
I: libaosd-text-dev: copyright-with-old-dh-make-debian-copyright
I: libaosd-text2: copyright-with-old-dh-make-debian-copyright
Fixed.
P: aosd-cat: no-upstream-changelog
P: libaosd-dev: no-upstream-changelog
P: libaosd2: no-upstream-changelog
P: libaosd-text-dev: no-upstream-changelog
P: libaosd-text2: no-upstream-changelog
Will be fixed in the next upstream release.
I: aosd-cat: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign
usr/share/man/man1/aosd_cat.1.gz:88
Fixed both upstream and with a local patch until the next release.
X: libaosd2: shlib-calls-exit usr/lib/libaosd.so.2.0.0
Will be fixed in the next upstream release.
I: libaosd2: no-symbols-control-file usr/lib/libaosd.so.2.0.0
I: libaosd-text2: no-symbols-control-file usr/lib/libaosd-text.so.2.0.0
Given that this tag is of wishlist severity, I believe that it's not
strictly
necessary to resolve. If it is strongly advised to fix this one,
could you please point me to the guide on how to create these files?
Is it just dpkg-gensymbols or there is something more to it?
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on XXX could be avoided
if "YYY" were not uselessly linked against it (they use none of its
symbols).
I'm gonna need your help in resolving this one...
As per Niels Thykier's advice I have added these flags into debian/rules
LDFLAGS: --as-needed,--no-undefined.
It removed most of the warnings but these two:
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on libpthread.so.0 could be avoided if
"debian/aosd-cat/usr/bin/aosd_cat" were not uselessly linked against it
(they use none of its symbols).
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on libpthread.so.0 could be avoided if
"debian/libaosd-text2/usr/lib/libaosd-text.so.2.0.0" were not uselessly
linked against it (they use none of its symbols).
--
Eugene Paskevich | *==)----------- | Plug me into
eugene@raptor.kiev.ua | -----------(==* | The Matrix
Reply to: