Re: Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]
On Thursday, January 07, 2016 05:54:29 AM Tobias Frost wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 18:08:55 -0500 Robert James Clay <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > On Tuesday, January 05, 2016 04:27:48 AM Tobias Frost wrote:
> > > - Is the patch forwarded to upstream?
> > The non vendor specific parts of it, you mean? I plan to further
> > discuss other aspects of it with him, yes... I have provided him
> > with the results of package builds but he hasn't commented...
> The Makefile looks buggy to me, not vendor-specific: Hardcoded paths
> are bad. But ok, a patch will do it for now. However, please then set
> the patch headers appropiately, especially the Forwarded one with (if
> available) a link to more information.
I'll be discussing that with the author, but in the mean time will see about
updating the patch headers more appropriately.
> > > - d/rules: Are the lines setting CPPFLAGS and friend really needed?
> > As I recall, those were needed to clean up the hardening related
> lintian errors.
> With debhelper 9 and compat 9 this is no longer needed.
According to my notes, I was still seeing hardening related errors, after
changing the debhelper version to 9. I'll investigate that again.
> You can cleanup your d/rules even more: This is enough:
> #!/usr/bin/make -f
> dh $@
I'll be looking into how it might be reduced to that, although there is at
least one thing I'd want to keep...
> - the dh_installchangelogs --keep HISTORY is not needed, Debian users
> know that they have to look on changelog.gz
And those already familiar with the application (but not necessarily Debian)
would expect to see the HISTORY file, so I'd rather keep that. (It only adds a
sym link after all...)
> - dh_installdocs --link-doc=multimail just adds complexity, saving
> maybwe 10k.
And not really needed any longer, when the dbgsym package is being used.
I'll take care of that
> - dh_auto_install --destdir=debian/multimail destdir is automatically
> figured out by dh_auto_install.
I'll check into that as well, as I don't recall why I explicitly still had
I'll investigate the issues you raised regarding the debian/copyright file
and resolve as necessary.