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

Re: gnucobol/2.2-1



Upstream won't remove generated files from their tarball.

But they said I can either download the source from their VCS (where there is no generated files)(svn on SF.net). Which option should I prefer:

* use tarball, remove stuff & build

* use svn-buildpackage (I may have to remove stuffs too) ? in this case, do you know some deb which use it ?

Ludwin


Le 11/06/2018 à 09:52, Paul Wise a écrit :
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Ludwin Janvier wrote:

* I disabled the generation of the *-dbgsym packages with override_dh_strip
because there was no debug symbol. Is this an issue?
It would be nice if the missing debug symbols issue could be fixed,
but it isn't essential to do that.

* The source file contains some build files (e.g. doc.pdf, generated
doc.info, ... ). The problem is that the "clean" target removes this files
-> the build does not pass the reproducible test. I see 2 ways to bypass
this behavior:
Please ask upstream to remove all generated files from their VCS. The
same applies to tarballs, with the possible exception of autotools
cruft (configure/etc).

- If I add the tools to rebuild this files, lintian/debhelper thinks I made
local changes on this files (the rebuild doesn't match exactly the original,
because it includes the build date) and suggest a patch. (maybe there's a
way to ignore this files ?)
If upstream refuses to remove the files, you can remove them in
`debian/rules clean` and early in `debian/rules build`. The first so
that building twice in a row works and the second so that they are
always built from source.

- So I patched makefile.am so the clean target does not remove this files.
Is this the best option ?
Sounds like this would prevent building the files from source, I would
suggest not doing that.



Reply to: