Bug#814852: RFS: openfst/1.5.1-1 -- weighted finite-state transducers library
* Giulio Paci <giuliopaci@gmail.com>, 2016-03-07, 17:44:
I added a README.source
I don't like the phrase "build environment must not change during
automated builds". It makes me think of that you must not install or
remove packages when you package is building, which is technically true,
but certainly not what you meant.
On Friday I discovered an issue with this patch that, randomly,
prevents tests to complete.
I saw the patch was updated in f083eb6924bf. Is this fixed now?
Typo in the patch header:
idemppotent -> idempotent
Why is "HopCroft" spelled with capital C?
I've never seen this name spelled like that before.
(Searching for "HopCroft" in codesearch.d.n revealed that there's an
embedded code copy of OpenFST in src:hfst. *sigh*)
I think the 500 MB/job limit is insufficient.
[...]
I increased the limit to 2Gb/job, but I am not completely convinced
about this new limit.
s/Gb/GB/ (unless you meant gigabits :-P)
Sounds good enough for me. Let's not overthink this. :)
How likely is it that we are going to compile with parallel=2 on an
amd64 system with 4Gb of RAM, without swap available?
Unlikely. Although we do seem to have an s390x buildd with only 3GB of
RAM:
https://db.debian.org/machines.cgi?host=zemlinsky
I'd remove "Increase per job required memory to 2Gb for parallel
builds.", because the previous version didn't have any limits, and you
already said "Limit parallelism on buildds in order not to run out of
RAM" earlier.
We have automatic debug packages these days, so I'd drop the -dbg package.
Dropped the -dbg package.
Hmm, "According to https://wiki.debian.org/AutomaticDebugPackages"; looks
like truncated sentence. Anyway, IMO the announcement message is a
better source of information on this:
https://lists.debian.org/5675E791.6060705@thykier.net
cppcheck says:
[src/bin/fstcompile.cc:57]: (error) Memory leak: istrm
[src/bin/fstdraw.cc:72]: (error) Memory leak: ostrm
[src/bin/fstprint.cc:67]: (error) Memory leak: ostrm
--
Jakub Wilk
Reply to: