Hi Tony, On Sun, 2011-08-07 at 20:25 -0500, Edgar Antonio Palma de la Cruz wrote: > El Wed, 3 Aug 2011 23:49:53 +0200 > Kilian Krause <kilian@debian.org> escribió: > > Cleaning up is a good thing yet the oldpatches.patch looks like it > > catches more than it should: > > > > AUTHORS | 2 > > Makefile.am | 4 > > Makefile.in | 914 - > > README | 2 > > aclocal.m4 | 8966 +++++++++++++------ > > autotrace.1 | 4 > > autotrace.h | 4 > > autotrace.pc.in | 4 > > config.h.in | 3 > > configure |25257 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- > > configure.in | 91 curve.c | 4 > > fit.c | 3 > > ltmain.sh | 3665 +++++-- > > main.c | 10 > > output-pdf.c | 16 > > output-pstoedit.c | 2 > > output-pstoedit.h | 2 > > 18 files changed, 28530 insertions(+), 10423 deletions(-) > I split the oldpatches.patch(and then was removed) to make a > patch-per-file and then I removed the changes in: > ltmain.sh > configure > config.h.in > Makefile.in > > The patch for this files was removed because when I use autoreconf > it remove this files and use another files(the same but *new*) to > build. Thanks! Still it looks like all of the patches you elaborately pieced apart do neither have a meaningful description what they do and why they are needed nor have any source (where they were taken from and who originally made them up) and comment whether they have already been pushed back upstream. To me it looks like there's a number of patches that aren't useful anymore: - If you're using autoreconf, are you sure debian/patches/aclocal.m4.patch is needed? - debian/patches/AUTHORS.patch is effectively a null edit. Moreover this is nothing Debian should decide on its own. - debian/patches/autotrace.h.patch looks pretty much like a null edit too. Why is this needed? - At least your patches: + debian/patches/autotrace.pc.in.patch + debian/patches/config.h.in.patch + debian/patches/configure.in.patch + debian/patches/curve.c.patch + debian/patches/fit.c.patch + debian/patches/main.c.patch + debian/patches/output-pdf.c.patch + debian/patches/output-pstoedit.c.patch + debian/patches/output-pstoedit.h.patch + debian/patches/README.patch sound like a pretty good idea to talk to upstream about. If that is not taken from upstream they should be informed. Please put verbose comments why they are needed and where taken from including the information whether they are forwarded back upstream. - debian/patches/configure.patch, debian/patches/ltmain.sh.patch, debian/patches/Makefile.in.patch can be omited with autoreconf I guess. - debian/patches/Makefile.am.patch would probably be a good candidate to revisit. Debian does not want to ship *.la files anymore. Having a look at the rest of the package: What exactly is debian/pstoedit.m4 supposed to do? In debian/rules you use autoreconf but not autotools-dev. Why? Moreover your clean target removed *dh-orig which is supposed to be done by autotools/autoreconf debhelpers. I guess you want to put sample.c into debian/clean and remove the override to let the automatic work correctly. More of a style hint than a requirement: --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man are default for dh_auto_configure. No need to add them. > There's a warn from lintian: > W: autotrace source: ancient-libtool ltmain.sh 1.4.2 > Should I override it? Well, you have a patch in debian/patches for that anyway. So you can both override this warning or just ignore it. The preferred would be if upstream could produce a fixed release with all the patches applied to move them out of Debian altogether. Thanks! -- Best regards, Kilian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part