Re: RFS: bibledit-xiphos (attempt 2, after 1 month)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Thank you, Andreas, for looking into the package. I'll look into all
these issues that affect Debian packaging, and also to see how the
upstream code can be updated so that it compiles without warnings even
with the newest gcc compiler. I do appreciate the remarks you made.
Some more good news: Somebody promised to upload the package after
some issues will have been fixed. Teus.
On 12/04/2011 01:15 PM, Andreas Moog wrote:
> On 11/30/2011 08:46 PM, Teus Benschop wrote:
>
> I am not a DD so can't sponsor your package.
>
>> bibledit-xiphos - Glue between bibledit and xiphos
>
> Some remarks:
>
> Lintian (lintian -IE --pedantic) complains:
>
> P: bibledit-xiphos source: unneeded-build-dep-on-quilt P:
> bibledit-xiphos: copyright-refers-to-symlink-license
> usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL
>
> gcc complains:
>
>> bibledit-xiphos.cpp: In member function 'void TinySpawn::run()':
>> bibledit-xiphos.cpp:249:9: warning: variable
>> 'standard_output_filedescriptor_pointer' set but not used
>> [-Wunused-but-set-variable] bibledit-xiphos.cpp:250:9: warning:
>> variable 'standard_error_filedescriptor_pointer' set but not used
>> [-Wunused-but-set-variable]
>
> and dpkg-shlibdeps emits numerous warnings about useless linking.
> Can you investigate these with your upstream?
>
> In debian/control:
>
> Build-Depends:
>
> quilt - see above patchutils (>= 0.2.25), rcs, curl - Why are those
> needed while building?
>
> libdbus-glib-1-dev (>= 0.70) - oldstable has version 0.76-1, so I
> guess the version requirement can be dropped.
>
> Depends:
>
> pkg-config, libgtk2.0-dev, libsoup2.4-dev - Are those needed to
> work with the package? (I don't know either bibledit or xiphos)
>
> Cheers, Andreas
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=PWvV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: