Bug#825237: RFS: mrpt/1:1.4.0-1 [ITA] [RC]
Dear Sean,
Thank you very much for the review, indeed any help is appreciated!
> You should drop the libmrpt-dbg package, since we now have automatic
> *-dbgsym binary package generation.
Done (upstream). I wasn't aware of this change.
In the past, I provided -dbg packages with a totally different meaning
(very similar to those provided by wxWidgets, if you are familiar with
them): they were another version of all libraries, compiled with -g
and other flags that enabled many extra run-time checks. I dropped
those packages because of the (what I understood) was the preferred
meaning of -dbg packages in Debian.
Now that those -dbg packages have been renamed to -dbgsym, do you
think it may be a good idea to generate again those debug packages?
I would be really thankful for any advice regarding "good practices"
in this sense...
> Why have you marked this RFS as "[ITA]"? It means "intent to adopt" but
> you're already the maintainer.
Right, it was a mistake.
> Could you explain why you changed the package priority optional->extra?
I did it back in January and can't find an extended description in the
commit log about *why* I did it, but it was probably because of some
Lintian error/warning regarding this part of the policy (2.5
Priorities):
Packages must not depend on packages with lower priority values
(excluding build-time dependencies). In order to ensure this, the
priorities of one or more packages may need to be adjusted.
I have switched it back to "optional" upstream and will try to
re-regenerate all packages and run Lintian to see if that was the
reason.
> Unfortunately, it fails to build on my 32-bit machine; log attached.
wow, that's really unexpected! It seems there is an error in one CMake module:
CMake Error at /usr/share/cmake-3.5/Modules/TestBigEndian.cmake:104 (message):
TEST_BIG_ENDIAN found no result!
Will investigate if it's a real problem with cmake or with my scripts.
Again, thank you very much for the help.
Best,
Jose Luis
Reply to: