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

Bug#841222: Acknowledgement (RFS: patat)

Dear Félix,

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 07:42:49PM +0200, Félix Sipma wrote:
> > 2. As I mentioned previously, please add patat to the Haskell team's
> > package-plan.git and run the scripts provided to confirm that the
> > versions of all the libraries package by the Haskell team are compatible
> > with patat.
> OK, I thought that I had to do that after having patat uploaded to sid.

No, we put stuff in there before it's uploaded so we don't break it.

> > 3. Could you confirm that the package builds with ghc 8, please?
> > The Haskell team is working to have that version of ghc in stretch.
> It does, in fact ghc 8 is the default version (stackage lts-7.0) used to
> build the package.

Great.  Thanks for confirming that.

> Not sure about this "Forwarded:" header... The patch aim is to remove
> installation instructions and CI links, so I obviously do not want to
> forward this upstream.

You should use "Forwarded: not-needed" (see DEP-3).

> > 2. You can fix all of these Lintian tags, except possibly
> > hardening-no-fortify-functions.  You should definitely deal with the
> > warnings.
> > 
> > W: patat-dbgsym: debug-file-with-no-debug-symbols
> I've updated debian/rules to something matching
> stylish-haskell.

Okay.  I'll take a proper look soon.

> > I: patat: spelling-error-in-binary usr/bin/patat Nam Name
> > I: patat: spelling-error-in-binary usr/bin/patat isn't isn't
> > I: patat: spelling-error-in-binary usr/bin/patat forward forward
> > I: patat: spelling-error-in-binary usr/bin/patat upto up to
> > I: patat: spelling-error-in-binary usr/bin/patat discontigous discontiguous
> > I: patat: spelling-error-in-binary usr/bin/patat uncomplete incomplete
> > I: patat: spelling-error-in-binary usr/bin/patat The The
> Not sure about this one... Is "patat" too generic for lintian? I've
> added this to debian/lintian-overrides.

I don't understand.  It is pointing out misspellings, such as
'uncomplete', somewhere in the upstream source.  You can add a quilt
patch to fix them, and forward it upstream.

> > I: patat: hardening-no-bindnow usr/bin/patat I: patat:
> > hardening-no-pie usr/bin/patat
> > 
> > I think that in order to pass hardening options to gcc, if you're
> > willing to work on that, you'll need to abandon the CDBS build system
> > you're using at present.  See the Makefile for keysafe[1] (not yet in
> > Debian) to see how to pass the options, and the rules file for the
> > stylish-haskell package to see how to do without CDBS.
> After reading this Makefile, I'm not sure how keysafe avoids
> hardening-no-bindnow and hardening-no-pie... Do you have any clue?

The Makefile propagates LDFLAGS, CFLAGS and CPPFLAGS through to ghc.
Then you enable all hardening in your d/rules,[1] and the right flags
get set by debhelper.

> > 3. Please run upstream's test suite during the package build.
> Should be done now, I'm not sure about how I run tests... See
> debian/rules override_dh_auto_test

Okay, I'll look later.

> Concerning the last lintian warning (binary-without-manpage), I'm not
> sure it will add anything to "--help", and it is going to add an
> overhead to maintain the package... If it's not required I would
> prefer not to do anything with this.

Adding manpages is one of the things that Debian does to standardise and
bring together the different programs that are part of the Debian
system.  I'd strongly encourage you to be part of this QA effort.

With regard to maintenance, hopefully you can persuade upstream to adopt
your manpage, so there wouldn't be any overhead.

In the meantime, you can use help2man to generate the manpage.  Note
that you shouldn't run help2man during the package build, as it's a
notorious source of FTBFS bugs.  Instead, add a target to d/rules to
generate the manpage.  See the ocrmypdf source package's d/rules.

If help2man is insufficient, see again stylish-haskell where I use

[1] https://wiki.debian.org/Hardening

Sean Whitton

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: