Re: RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]
Hi,
>1. My ITP bug seems to be correct.
><https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=813485>
>On the same site, you can see my try of an RFS bug, I sent it to
><submit@bugs.debian.org> with the subject "Bug#813485: RFS: setop/0.1-1
>[ITP]". So the address is correct, but the subject should have just been
>"RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]", or?
yes, it seems correct, but it didn't work, because it should have opened
a new bug with RFS subject (probably it was a problem in the BTS system, trying
again might work)
>2. What exactly shall I do now? Write a new message with correct >address, subject and same content as in the first try? Or reply to an
>existing message so that all mails are in the same thread? And what to
>do with further mails – reply normal or the this new RFS try?
try to resend the email.
>When now someone downloads the sources from Github and just builds them >with a simple make command, he gets the debug version. Can I somehow
>influence this behavior without getting trouble with the rules for
>packaging?
make
g++ -std=c++11 -O3 src/main.cpp -lboost_program_options -lboost_regex -o setop
gdb ./setop
Reading symbols from ./setop...(no debugging symbols found)...done.
ls -l
-rwxrwxr-x 1 locutus locutus 310064 mag 16 10:36 setop
BTW libboost-dev is useless.
CXXFLAGS="-g" make
g++ -g -std=c++11 -O3 src/main.cpp -lboost_program_options -lboost_regex -o setop
gdb ./setop
Reading symbols from ./setop...done.
ls -l
-rwxrwxr-x 1 locutus locutus 2620792 mag 16 10:35 setop
so, exporting CXXFLAGS in rules might help.
and the default is *no*, it isn't built with Debug symbols enabled.
>Shall the license keyword be public-domain like in my link or unlicense
>like in yours?
it should be the license written on your orig tarball.
You have none right now, so choose one, and create a LICENSE file explaining all the licenses
in the tarball.
cheers,
G.
Reply to: