On 12/06/2015 09:05 AM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > control: owner -1 ! > control: tag -1 + moreinfo > > Hi! > > First, please be a bit more patiente with your pings; following up only > 5 days later is very much not helpful. Sorry about that. I should have realized how soon it was before I pinged. > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 03:10:28PM -0500, Jacob Adams wrote: >> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "9wm" >> >> * Package name : 9wm >> Version : 1.3.4-1 >> Upstream Author : Neale Pickett <neale@woozle.org> >> * URL : https://woozle.org/neale/g.cgi/x11/9wm >> * License : Expat >> Section : x11 > > The review: > > * trailing whitespace on debian/control:29 Fixed > * please be a lot more verbose on the changelog. "Redo packaging" is > not satisfactory at all. Every change should be documented. I've updated it to reflect all changes. Should I update the timestamp? (It was generated by dch when I first made the changelog). > * debian/patches/*: if possible a URL of the forwarded patch would be > nice They've all been forwarded via email, so no urls unfortunately. I did, however, have one unnecessary patch in there so I've removed it. I just emailed upstream about the two patches I'm still using (The FHS one was rejected without any reasoning as it was with a few others and simply not applied so I've asked for a reason. The -fPIC one is new). > * debian/rules: > + trailing whitespace at line 11 > + with debhelper compat 9 exporting the build flags that way is not > needed anymore, so lines 3-4-5 can go away Fixed. > * you removed the postinst and prerm with the update-alternatives calls, > that looks useful to me; why? Because I did not look over the previous packaging closely enough :) I've added them back. I've also modified them slightly to call set -e in order to avoid a lintian warning. > * even if you try to enable the hardening in d/rules, that doesn't work, > and blhc still complains (and also lintian) I'm not sure what to do about this. Should I just have a patch that appends $(shell dpkg-buildflags --get $VAR) for CFLAGS and LDFLAGS? After removing the unecessary lines from d/rules the buildflags appear to somewhat work but I've had to add a patch to compile objects with -fPIC as otherwise I get cc -fPIE -pie -Wl,-z,relro -Wl,-z,now 9wm.o event.o manage.o menu.o client.o grab.o cursor.o error.o -lXext -lX11 -o 9wm /usr/bin/ld: 9wm.o: relocation R_X86_64_32 against `.rodata' can not be used when making a shared object; recompile with -fPIC 9wm.o: error adding symbols: Bad value > * From piuparts: > 0m51.6s INFO: Running adequate version 0.12.1 now. > 0m51.8s ERROR: WARN: Inadequate results from running adequate! > 9wm: missing-alternative x-window-manager > > 0m51.8s ERROR: WARN: Running adequate resulted in inadequate tags found: missing-alternative > 0m59.0s INFO: PASS: Installation and purging test. > 1m1.2s INFO: apt-cache knows about the following packages: 9wm > 1m8.3s INFO: Installation of ['tmp/9wm_1.3.4-1_amd64.deb'] ok > 1m15.4s INFO: Running adequate version 0.12.1 now. > 1m21.1s ERROR: WARN: Broken symlinks: > /usr/bin/x-window-manager -> /etc/alternatives/x-window-manager > /usr/share/man/man1/x-window-manager.1.gz -> /etc/alternatives/x-window-manager.1.gz > /etc/alternatives/x-window-manager.1.gz -> /usr/share/man/man1/9wm.1.gz > /etc/alternatives/x-window-manager -> /usr/bin/9wm > 1m22.9s ERROR: FAIL: Package purging left files on system: > /etc/alternatives/x-window-manager -> /usr/bin/9wm not owned > /etc/alternatives/x-window-manager.1.gz -> /usr/share/man/man1/9wm.1.gz not owned > /usr/bin/x-window-manager -> /etc/alternatives/x-window-manager not owned > /usr/share/man/man1/x-window-manager.1.gz -> /etc/alternatives/x-window-manager.1.gz not owned > > 1m22.9s ERROR: FAIL: Installation, upgrade and purging tests. > 1m24.3s ERROR: piuparts run ends. All these should be fixed by the above. > > > Please also triage the debian bugs: > + #681740 was fixed in 1.2-10 Should I just close it? > + #349680 not sure what to do, but sice you're becoming the maintainer > that's your call. probably the best course of action, given where > the links in that bug end, is to just close the bug. I've closed it. plan9port and 9wm are two different things. I've uploaded a new version of 9wm to mentors. Thanks for your help! Jacob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature