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

Re: RFS: autotrace (updated package)



El Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:25:14 +0200
Kilian Krause <kilian@debian.org> escribió:
> 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? 
This is no applied, is just for history. 

> - debian/patches/AUTHORS.patch is effectively a null edit. Moreover
> this is nothing Debian should decide on its own.
Unapplied now.

> - debian/patches/autotrace.h.patch looks pretty much like a null edit
> too. Why is this needed?
It solves a old enum error http://bugs.debian.org/292246

> - 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.
Well the upstream was a little quiet the last few years(7) and there's
no release since 9 years. Anyway I already sent a *ping*. 

> - debian/patches/configure.patch, debian/patches/ltmain.sh.patch,
> debian/patches/Makefile.in.patch can be omited with autoreconf I
> guess.
As i said above, this are just for the record, not applied.

> - debian/patches/Makefile.am.patch would probably be a good candidate
> to revisit. Debian does not want to ship *.la files anymore.
Well the .la files are managed via .install file.

> Having a look at the rest of the package:
> 
> What exactly is debian/pstoedit.m4 supposed to do?
A time ago, it was used for aclocal. I removed because there's no need
now.

> 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.
I read on the man of dh-autoreconf that using this implicate the use of
autotools-dev. 
Done the d/clean file and the *dh-orig remove.

> 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.
:O done! 

> > 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.
I will ignore it.

I added more info about the patches and the bugs(if exist) it solves.
I intent to keep the patches only for historic, because when I switch
from non-patch system to 3.0(quilt) source format what was changed
before, but if this is the best way to switch and track(bugs mainly), I
will removed.

Thanks!

-- 
 .''`.  Tony Palma.
: :' :  PGP/GPG Key ID: 258FFB1A  
`. `'   identi.ca: xbytemx
  `-    Debian GNU/Linux

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: