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

Bug#809199: RFS: gap-guava/3.12+ds1-3 [unrep fix] [dbg] -- coding theory library for GAP



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Hello Tobias:

On 28/12/15 11:54, Tobias Frost wrote:
> Hi Jerome,
> 
> Am Montag, den 28.12.2015, 09:13 +0100 schrieb Jerome Benoit:
>> Package: sponsorship-requests
>> Severity: normal
>>
>> Dear Mentors:
>>
>> 	I am looking for a sponsor for the package gap-guava that
>> 	I am maintining on behalf of the Debian Science Team.
>> 	This pacakge fix a reproduciblefix, introduce a debug
>> 	package, and fixes some new (so to speak) warnings.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jerome
> 
> Please note that dedicated debug packages are no longer required, they
> are built automatically ("dgbsym"). See https://lists.debian.org/debian
> -devel/2015/12/msg00262.html
> 
> Therefore you should refrain from introducing -dbg packages. 

I realized this part of the story at finalizing stage when I was testing
my material with pbuilder (Sid): lintian emmitted a lot of warnings about
this automatic package: I have fixed them (and other related stuff) by
introducing by hand the dbg package. If I remember well the lintian message
sent me to a Debian website: the new behaviour of the Debian tool chain
was cited in an ad hoc way; it sounds like it might be done by hand.
Anyway, I had to fix some autotool chain issue to silence the lintian messages.
I could fixed them within the pbuilder environment, but I thought that the -dbg
package was mandatory.

May I remove it ?

Thanks,
Jerome

> 
> 
> Tobi
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWgWq+AAoJEIC/w4IMSybjz2YH/01qzadWeQx/XUPuc39xGNTD
agyJmmz5pAkwRwMrLSBmuKsCguO5Y908ef7XjWKsh7N6Hx9ouP4bowavvWXJGMON
KRwAkLrfZb/OyFUAMknwYtgaS77CaHLjoE5ccFbfp6cjsSIDE0ZRnjKPm6Y/YQan
rxzDGhe+x+45uiJnhPbcdmvwaTNAmCFxRTHmaO8MOEziFpAtaZB5ajTCCryxPJoD
u2YLx8g/q4w4XzZWAdhGEXC2CDpO4ElyVlTfBPe8N9YjrN6uMxSBPLJA645F4ZcV
5CGiybM1KiQz+1MogV6vbLk6RoZoCDiyE+rN9aipYKZ8aOZ11W2+H4oGwZcLlYA=
=RLLc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Reply to: