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

Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] QtOctave: removal of simplercs

2010/5/9 Thomas Weber <thomas.weber.mail@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 01:10:41AM -0500, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
>> On 8 May 2010 04:16, Thomas Weber <thomas.weber.mail@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I'm currently packaging the 0.9.1 release of QtOctave.
>> I pushed to git the work I have so far. I think I overwrote a fair
>> amount of work, since I just blindly stamped over whatever you had
>> there.
> I haven't pushed anything yet. However, you did delete quite some
> changelog entries of packages already in the archive, so we most
> definitely can't continue from there.

Yes, I know that was a mistake. I didn't realise I was working from an
old tarball when I begun the work yesterday.

>> It's a proposal towards moving all that extra crap in the
>> source package to qtoctave-utils. Still got a few lintian errors, but
>> overall seems in good shape.
> Sorry Jordi, but this is the wrong approach. The problem is having 6
> binaries for just one software; whether they are in one package or in
> two is not relevant.

Well, the thing is that by upstream's own admission, four of those
binaries are mostly irrelevant. One of them wasn't even being built by
the current build process.

And it's eight binaries, not six. I guess putting them all in
/usr/lib/qtoctave might make sense and spare us the chore of splitting
the binary package but patch the sources instead to look for those
binaries in that location.

> And indeed, the generic names already cause a problem:

Alright, let's move them. They should go in /usr/lib, according to the
FHS (internal binaries).

> Jordi, please try to have smaller commits:

That was a mistake. I documented every little change in the changelog,
so that should be more informative. Some of the patches do fix an
actual problem with the upstream source, such as generating l10n files
and building widgetserver which wasn't getting built at all. Maybe I
can still convince upstream to accept those patches for the promised
0.9.2 bugfixing release.

Also, sorry I jumped on this, but I didn't want to see another update
of "my" package without my involvement. ;-) I was already getting
warnings from Debian admins about my name getting cleaned out from the

Btw, Carthago delenda est, qrupdate?

- Jordi G. H.

Reply to: