On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 12:05:20AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 01/14/2011 10:45 PM, Julien Viard de Galbert wrote:
> > Well the maintainer has agreed (on private mail) to give it to me, and
> > I'm planning to ask him to sponsor it so my understanding was that we
> > could avoid the bureaucracy...
> >
>
> The way that the previous maintainer would declare that he doesn't
> want to maintain would be a RFA (Request For Adoption).
>
> The way you would adopt it would be to do an ITA (Intention To Package)
> by renaming his RFA and take-over the ownership of the RFA bug number.
>
> The above 2 are very simple tasks, it's not heavy bureaucracy. You can't
> avoid it, as we want everything to be public in Debian. Also, how can we
> make sure that you are saying the truth? Well, simply by doing the above. :)
>
> Everybody does it, why should you be an exception?
>
[...]
OK, OK, I'll ask Felipe to orphan it.
>
> >> I tried to do:
> >>
> >> git checkout -b upstream-sid origin/upstream-sid
> >>
> >> but it doesn't seem you are using branches. Or am I mistaking with
> >> names of the branches you used? Where did you store the .orig.tar.gz?
> >> I had to pickup the tgz from upstream, that's not good.
> >>
> >>
> > I'm using the default names for git-buildpackage: upstream and
> > pristine-tar.
> > git branch -r or looking at the gitweb page should have told you...
> > So I guess that maybe you're not familiar with git and would prefer
> > that I upload a version to mentors.d.n
> >
> I am very familiar with Git, it's just that normally, we use upstream-sid /
> debian-sid, so that you can have 2 branches per Debian flavor (one for
> Lenny, one for Squeeze, one for SID, and eventually one for Experimental,
> then you can "git branch" or "git checkout -b" to create a new branch
> very easily).
I didn't want to offense you in any way by saying you might not be
familiar with git. I'm sorry if it sounded like that...
I see your point with branch names.
But I don't think there is a real consensus on the naming, for instance
the X strike force name them debian-unstable, upstream-unstable
(and same with -experimental).
And the first reference I read: git-buildpackage's documentation 'just'
use master, upstream and pristine-tar.
>
> I don't mind using Git, it's very good that you decided to put your own
> package on collab-maint, but it would be good if you could as well provide
> a link to a .dsc file pre-compiled as well in the future. Anyway, I don't
Well on some Teams, people prefer working on the VCS directly, but OK
I'll provide a .dsc later.
> mind acting as the permanent sponsor for this package if you like :)
> (as I really need it to be in good shape for my own usages)
OK, if Felipe no longer have time for it, that's a good news for
webalizer.
> >> Upstream uses 2.23-03 as version name, it seems you renamed it 2.23.03.
> >> Why did you do that? If the "-" char is used for Debian, and it's a good
> >> thing to have upstream avoiding it (I would strongly recommend you to
> >> get it touch with Webalizer authors and let them change that), you can
> >> still use it for your package versionning, and produce a 2.23-03-1 in
> >> Debian. It's better than renaming it at least, IMHO.
> >>
> > Well I kept previous maintainers naming on this, even the d/watch file
> > is handling the rename properly so I basically didn't change anything
> > here ;)
> >
> Please do. Any words about communicating with upstream about the fact that
> his naming scheme isn't so great?
If you insist, I really didn't think this could be that important...
I'll drop a word upstream too.
But first, if you don't mind, let's try to understand the build issue:
> >> Then, I tried to build your package and it fails:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >> autoconf: Undefined macros:
> >> configure.in:300:AC_MSG_NOTICE(Done. Type 'make' to continue with build.)
> >> configure.in:36:AC_SYS_LARGEFILE
> >> configure.in:39:AC_CHECK_DECL(altzone,OPTS="-DHAVE_ALTZONE
> >> ${OPTS}",,[#include <time.h>])
> >> dh_autoreconf: autoreconf -f -i returned exit code 1
> >> make: *** [build] Error 9
> >> dpkg-buildpackage: error: debian/rules build gave error exit status 2
> >>
> >>
> > Strange, I've never seen such errors it has always build fine on sid
> > either directly or via pbuilder, I'll double check.
> > Also I don't have any /usr/share/aclocal/dotconf.m4 file on my system,
> > can you check from which package it comes from so that I can test with
> > it too ?
> >
> zigo@GPLHost:buzzig>_ ~$ dpkg -S /usr/share/aclocal/dotconf.m4
> libdotconf-dev: /usr/share/aclocal/dotconf.m4
>
> My laptop uses Squeeze. I believe your package should be able to compile
> on it as well, right? I don't get it myself... Anyway, what you are
> commenting
> is a *WARNING*, not the error itself, if I'm not mistaking.
Yeah, right, read too fast, It's a warning and installing libdotconf-dev
only adds the warning, it still builds.
> > Well the package had a lot of patches using dpatch so moving to quilt
> > was a natural thing to do, now I've learned a lot on using quilt, I will
> > not revert back ;)
> >
> Sure, but fix your dh_autoreconf thing! :)
I'd love too, but I just tried on my squeeze laptop and it builds...
> > I can't reproduce the issue now, so I hope you can either fix it on your
> > side or help me to reproduce it.
> > Thanks again for your interest in webalizer.
> >
> Try to install libdotconf-dev then, and see if it's the issue, but I
> don't think so.
Yes, see above.
> I don't see why it would fail when it is installed, it sounds strange to
> me as well.
> There must be something else going on.
Certainly, but I really have no idea here.
Maybe we could check some versions:
I'm using debhelper 8.0.0, dh-autoreconf 2 and autoconf 2.67-2.
Do you have any other idea to tackle this ?
Thanks for your time,
--
Julien Viard de Galbert <julien@vdg.blogsite.org>
http://silicone.homelinux.org/ <julien@silicone.homelinux.org>
GPG Key ID: D00E52B6 Published on: hkp://keys.gnupg.net
Key Fingerprint: E312 A31D BEC3 74CC C49E 6D69 8B30 6538 D00E 52B6
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature