Re: RFS: proofgeneral
[Stephane: I am moving the discussion to debian-mentors, because I
got a reply from Mike Dupont there.]
Hi,
Thanks for your comments, Mike and Stephane! I am sorry for the
missing build-dependencies. I somehow expected it takes much
longer until somebody would try my package and that I therefore
would have some time for fixes.
I believe the build dependencies are right now, at least, I get a
clean build in pbuilder.
There are still some known issues, see far below.
Stéphane Glondu writes:
It's good that you take care of that! I've put Pierre Letouzey, who
expressed interest in having PG in Debian (and also a Coq developer), in
CC. I hope you don't mind.
No, I don't mind.
A few remarks:
- in debian/changelog, put #554263 on its own line, with an explicit
statement that you are adopting the package
Done.
- in debian/changelog, there are two extraneous blank lines after the
first entry; don't do that
Done.
- consider using debhelper 8 compat level
Done.
- consider using http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ for
debian/copyright
Done. (Nevertheless, I ask myself, why I got the compat level and
the copyright format wrong when following precisely the
guidelines in the new maintainers guide.)
- what is the rationale of fix-package-name-in-install-path.patch?
(sorry if it's a stupid question, shame on me if it's
policy :)
The package name is ``proofgeneral'' and therefore it should use
subdirectories named ``proofgeneral''. The upstream installation
procedure creates various subdirectories ``ProofGeneral''.
- in general, there are too many patches, and they look written in a
Debian-specific way. Please consider writing an upstreamable patch
(it seems that you have commit access to PG) to make things more
generic, so that there are less Debian-specific patches. Those are a
pain to maintain in the long run
Yes, I plan to incorporate some of the changes in the upstream
release. But this would be step 2. I would first like to
concentrate on getting an up-to-date version into Debian.
- there is an extraneous TAGS in the upstream tarball
Yes, that contains tags for the elisp code for developing Proof
General. I don't think this should appear in a Debian package.
- isn't emacs23-nox enough, as dependency of the binary
package?
I use now emacs23-nox | emacs23 | emacs23-lucid in the
dependencies.
- the compilation fails in a clean sid chroot with the following error:
fixed with
Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 8), texinfo, texlive-latex-base, texlive-generic-recommended, texi2html, emacs23-nox | emacs23 | emacs23-lucid
Known issues:
- upgrading from version 3.7 asks whether to preserve the changes
in /etc/emacs/site-start.d/50proofgeneral.el even when nobody
ever changed that. I believe the reason is that version 3.7
writes that file without registering it with dpkg.
Bye,
Hendrik
Reply to: