Bug#795704: RFS: mlucas/14.1+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- program to perform Lucas-Lehmer test on a Mersenne number
Hi
>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?
so basically the tarball found with uscan has nothing in common with the actual
Debian packaging?
you grab the tarball, you add a build system and you pack again, right?
>I do not understand. What should I do with `source_package_build.bash' ?
nothing, if it is internal used, and not meant to be called by an user
it is fine
>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...
actually the pourpose of the watch file is to notify at each new upstream
release, but in that way... not sure if we can make it work
>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?
maybe I didn't explain myself well
lines such as
# Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
# a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
# “Software”), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
# without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
# distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
# permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
# the following conditions:
#
shouldn't (in my opinion) have the starting "#"
>This email is probably too long...
not a problem for me :)
cheers!
G.
Reply to: