Re: Updating coq
Hello Julien,
good to hear that you are joining the team and that you are interested
in coq and related packages. The coq package is (again) lacking behind
upstream, so we could definitely use some help here. I had uopdated
the last versions of the package when it was more or less abandoned,
but in reality I am not even a regular coq user, so if you are motivated
to take over the coq maintenance that would be from my point of view
most appreciated.
On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 09:00:36PM +0100, Julien Puydt wrote:
> - debian/copyright says the source have to be edited, but doesn't say
> how ;
that file probably needs reviewing.
> - debian/README.source says gbp.conf does the trick and the version
> name should have a +dfsg suffix ;
that file could probably also be cleaned since it contains stuff from
the time when using package format 3 was new. Using a quilt patch
queue is standard now.
> - debian/gbp.conf does have a list of things not to put into the
> tarball ;
>
> - debian/changelog show the +dfsg suffix got lost more than five years
> ago.
>
>
> With my Debian Science Team hat on, I would:
>
> - have the list of excluded files in d/copyright ;
>
> - have d/watch use that to do the repacking, adding the +dfsg
> automatically.
>
> Shall I proceed?
yes, please. We probably should just drop the doc/ directory completely
since it is governed by a non-free licence. Some points that need
review:
- what kind of documentation can we build in debian ?
- tests. In the past the package maintainers attempted to run as much of
the upstream test suite as possible, but the problem is that
this makes building the package on slower architectures very resource
consuming (more than 10 hours !). We should rethink which tests it
really makes sense to run, and whether we should turn some of them
into as-installed tests.
Cheers -Ralf.
Reply to: