On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 03:02:09PM +0300, Коля Гурьев wrote:
> New version has been released yesterday. I built the package [1] and fixed
> some your comments as you wrote.
… so many releases!
> Sorry for the delay. I had some troubles with hardware of my computer, but I
> hope now they have been solved.
nvm!
> 11.02.2017 15:41, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > * Please consider explicitly enable (full) hardening flags in d/rules and test
> > if the build can pass.
>
> Hmm... It seems to be working. But lintian sill warnings about
> hardening-no-fortify-functions.
That usually means that something doesn't respect
CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS/CPPFLAGS & friends
btw,
DPKG_EXPORT_BUILDFLAGS = 1
is not needed: if you read debhelper(7) you'll see that starting with
compat 9 those are already exported by dh.
also,
export DH_VERBOSE # for easy debugging this script
does this work without the "=1" bits? (personally I export that in my
environment as I always want local builds to be as verbose as possible,
so I don't see the difference.
> 11.02.2017 15:41, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > dpkg-shlibdeps reports a lot of libraries that are linked but the binary
> > doesn't use any symbol: can you try to build with -Wl,--as-needed ?
>
> Thank you for the helpful option. But I did not use it because I manually
> got rid of any spare libraries from linker options. And now dpkg-shilibdeps
> does not show any warnings.
cool, even better!
something that might be made upstreamable?
You might not think/notice it just yet, but having too many local
patches does make maintenance a burden on the long run…
> > Well, it's bullshit if you ask me; I wouldn't be particularly happy to
> > put my work in the public domain exactly because I don't want the
> > "Telegram team needs to use full Telegram Desktop source code with some
> > different license" as they put it. But yep, it's right.
>
> Okay, I do not get it. I believe it would be better if the package was not a
> frant. I mean, let the patches have the same license like the upstream code.
> Like any other package in Debian archive.
It's not a techinical thing, but more political, actually. I want to
decide the license of what I write.
But what you did before was ok.
> [1] https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/telegram-desktop/telegram-desktop_1.0.12-1.dsc
This still need to take care of:
* spelling-error-in-binary (please upstream the fix)
* spelling-error-in-manpage
* desktop-entry-lacks-keywords-entry (please upstream the fix)
Once you do those I'll do a last round of license/copyright check (as I
don't remember if I did that), and if it's fine I'll upload.
git check:
* pristine-tar is not pushed/updated (after some check, if you have
pristine-tar-commit=True doing a `gbp buildpackage…` it does commit it
by itself, in some cases.…)
* you have a lot of branch, including a "master" (which is HEAD) and a
"debian", but it seems latter is abbandoned, and the actual
debianization is on "master". can you clean it up a bit?
* you have a weird looking tag tmp-old-debian
* you might want or not to push the upstream branch in your repo, your
call, but if you don't let me suggest you don't call the debianization
branch "master" ("debian" is cool, but please change HEAD).
* there is not upstream tag pushed for the last upstreams
but the git repo seems to be perfectly in line with what you uploaded to
mentors, which is very nice and makes me happy. Also because if I'm
happy with the git repo I can tell you to stop messing around with
tarballs and uploads and stuff, and in my experience everything is
smoother. :)
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature