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

Re: RFS: mpg321 (updated package, 2nd try)



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 2011-02-11 16:17, Nanakos Chrysostomos wrote:
> Dear mentors,
> I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.2.13-1 of my package "mpg321".
> 
> It builds these binary packages:
> 
> mpg321     - Simple and lighweight command line MP3 player
> 
> The package appears to be lintian clean.
> 
> The upload would fix these bugs: 148971, 196787
> 
> 
> The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
> - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mpg321
> - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free
> - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mpg321/mpg321_0.2.13-1.dsc
> 
> I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.
> 
> Kind regards
> Nanakos Chrysostomos

Hey

I cannot rebuild this in a clean chroot; as far as I can tell it is
trying to regenerate configure/Makefile.in without having all the
required dependencies.
  On a related note; I can build it in a clean chroot if I run:

 touch  configure Makefile.in

Though after building it has created a file called "[config.h].in".

debian/rules:
 - It is missing a call to "dh_prep" in the install target (dh_prep
   replaced dh_clean -k in debhelper 7)
 - Why the "\$(MAKE)" and not just "$(MAKE)" (also in install target)?
 - The CFLAGS in d/rules overrides flags set by dpkg-buildflags, which
   makes it more difficult to rebuild the package with different default
   flags (see man dpkg-buildflags).

Upstream homepage says that newest version is 0.2.12, the package claims
it is 0.2.13.

~Niels
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJNVYKVAAoJEAVLu599gGRCDToP/iNcLGzAJYvbYWHqAK53N7TH
2CNRGWcEu9nut/aktOSUuGmWwLo2PZHWpvFDqjcObAlYYkMI8b5ntcwZ7ezud7j8
u+3IEPnOvPySNUIOCVAMzuDYGPvxJte3Q11Da51EtYEO7yJhz1MP3/Axdvu7g1An
sUCcV+EKfSLNe7UvZTYr5KpcmbylhAZzrgGGaUnDm4YK5m0yHXPx9unWJQd9q6kM
k5bLrOvUi2rRU0lJ9VnzFz6QPFQnPm9yh92+UbhUY1rhwmdiSo+cbuErdZhLrUyt
tsLFkbIRetFeDsbuI0GnEHAs9KAcpxiIOQfq36ONwsQEH6TmuTofpE1hb+OMB6+6
ma4ekqYsGbSl2dNy2Khm1cVexB8tIldARaiH3rtx5LyiL0TFiYRn3UeKh7asN7nA
7YXcTrVw3JwMyU4VLrcM662Bj/iHMNHKE2fOeCFjfynZsWVZJBZTJ+R9bdk/iPDP
U2V3DTsuEl3H4NIFtmWWPerMWjsHd/Sqrag3fmRNjBz8TCTLC3svwdciBrRlK9jX
95wHR+PO/mLHbczdbBiIdjRgbUp/tWDak/RwFhG4w6L1uRrpIA3ozesR61UeZD2/
PbLictdCsyfWEtJwUhW3dbNuZa/DLWVsXWQU2VKEQEA2Ld+NaoR09Ag5kqL3G0lh
4ThbfIeypEPiQJh4HJeu
=nm3e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Reply to: