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

Bug#810921: RFS: rep-gtk/1: [ITA] -- GTK+ binding for librep

Sorry for taking a long time to reply, adding my delay I had email

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:13:29AM +0000, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 07:12:38PM +0000, Jose M Calhariz wrote:
> >  * Package name    : rep-gtk
> ok, let the party begin! :)
> * you removed a old transition package.
>   + \o/ yay less cruft in the archive!
>   + FYI, I confirmed by `dak rm -Rbn rep-gtk-gnome` that it is a leaf
>     package.
>   + also please remove debian/rep-gtk-gnome.NEWS


> * debian/control:
>   + a version costriction in a Suggest is really useless.  As in, you
>     have no assurances *at all* that it'll be followed.
>     But then, you build-dep on librep >= $version, so you'll get a
>     depends on that version, so not all might be lost :)
>     tl;dr: you don't need to do anything here, but be aware that
>     versioned Suggests are meaningless.
>   + the build-dep on autotools-dev is useless, please remove it.


>   + I still get vcs-field-not-canonical by lintian.  indeed Vcs-Git is
>     wrong (there is a /git/ too much in the middle).  otherwise, you
>     might want to use https:// for Vcs-Git too instead of the dumb
>     git://.  As you prefer.


>   + I have a extended-description-is-probably-too-short, please fix.

I don't know what to add to the description so requested the help of

> * debian/changelog:
>   + 2 trailing whitespaces at line 4.


>   + "remove upstream debian directory" ???  what's this?
>   + "New localization of files for package rep-gtk." and this?
>   + "Replace sed command by dh_listpackages." this is not there anymore
>   + "Merge the packaging work of Christopher Roy Bratusek." be more
>     verbose in this.  short dh, compat 9, dep5, blablabla


>   + s/read ability/readability/ maybe?


>   + mention the removal of rep-gtk-gnome.


>   + you need to target experimental, unstable won't be able to satisfy
>     the dependency on librep until the transition start (where you'll
>     need to re-upload the packages on unstable.  actually it would be
>     enough to have them ready, bug given that there are a lot of
>     changes, and you are a sponsored person where there are reviews
>     going on, better have them in experimental, and re-upload them in
>     unstable later).


> * debian/rules:
>   + override_dh_configure is unneed.  as I said with librep, those flags
>     are already exported in compat 9.
>     - also , there is trailing whitespace here, but if you remove the
>       whole line...
>   + override_dh_install just to call dh_install ? ;)

Need to cleanup gtk.la as is needed because of

>   + override_dh_installexamples => be aware you can also write the
>     directory name in debian/examples (up to you if you prefer small
>     files in debian/ or lines in d/rules)

No preference, so I am going for lines in d/rules

>   + don't DH_VERBOSE need to be exported to work?
> * you're building static libraries.  Do you really need them?  In Debian
>   we don't like static libraries.  Given that this is a standard autofoo
>   package, --disable-static to configure should do the trick.
>   + this will also get rid of unstripped-static-library and
>     non-empty-dependency_libs-in-la-file lintian tags.

See https://bugs.debian.org/684443

> * something to say about https://bugs.debian.org/680449 ?

No longer makes sense with the new version.  When this rep-gtk and
sawfish hit experimental I will ask user to try again.

Kind regards
Jose M Calhariz

Cerveja? Serve já!

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: