Bug#795704: RFS: mlucas/14.1+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- program to perform Lucas-Lehmer test on a Mersenne number
Hi Gianfranco,
Thanks for the quick reply, I have just finished dinner.
2015-08-21 20:46 GMT+08:00, Gianfranco Costamagna
<costamagnagianfranco@yahoo.it>:
> Hi Alex,
> let's review :)
>
> d/changelog please set to unstable, and update the timestamp
Okay.
> d/rules: wl-asneeded is good if enable, does it introduce some problems?
Okay I will add it.
> are both autotools-dev and autoreconf needed?
> usually the latter should superceed the former
>
Okay I will remove autotools-dev.
> d/rules: I personally do not like calling "bootstrap", specially when
> the only thing needed there seems to be applying one patch and calling and
> generating
> changelogs/manpages.
>
> I would generate them with dh_installmanpages or the equivalent dh call.
>
> d/patches/*: they seem to come from a git export-patch, are them already
> upstream?
> so why don't just ask to release a new tarball?
>
> carrying 30 patches might be a maintenance problem.
>
Okay. I think this needs further explaination. Upstream does not
include a build system, not even a Makefile. Building is done by
invoking gcc directly using different flags for different platform.
This is however cumbersome, so I add autotools to ease building. I use
git for development <https://gitlab.com/mlucas-ll/mlucas>. The 29
patches can be divided into 3 groups. 0001 - 0012, 0027 are patches
related to the source, forwarded upstream to be included in the next
version. The rest are patches to add the build system and script to
generate man page, NEWS, ChangeLog... Any advice on this?
> debian/repack seems not policy compliant (didn't check)
> maybe get-orig-source.sh is better as a name
Okay changed.
> also source_package_build.bash
>
> but I guess this might be a nitpick, since they are called by uscan
> so the user/developer never need to call them directly.
>
I do not understand. What should I do with `source_package_build.bash' ?
>
> d/watch what is the timestamp there?
>
> oh well, seems that upstream in that way doesn't increase the version number
> when releasing
> bad numbering is bad :)
>
Upstream uses Mlucas_MM.DD.YYYY.tbz2 instead of mlucas_14.1.tar.bz2
for backward capability, so we need to update debian/watch version
string for every new release...
> let me know,
>
> (I didn't try to build the package, and didn't check the copyrights)
>
> cheers,
>
> G.
>
>
>
> d/copyright: expat seems "commented" (even if not a problem)
> same for gpl
I do it beacuse lintian will complain about empty license if add
`License:' in the header paragraph. While lintian will complain about
unused license if I seperate the Expat-licnesed files in a seperate
file paragraph. What is your recommendation?
This email is probably too long...
Cheers,
Alex
Reply to: