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

Re: Replacing libio-compress-bzip2-perl, libcompress-zlib-perl, libio-compress-zlib-perl, and libio-compress-base-perl with libio-compress-perl

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 01:36:04 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:

> >Some comments:

Thanks for your work. Here comes another review:

(BTW: No need to upload to mentors.)

> >* debian/changelog:
> >  why is there the whole changelog of libio-compress-base-perl?
> >  libio-compress-perl is a new package so it should only have one
> >  changelog stanza with "Initial release (closes: #nnnnnn)." (and
> >  maybe a mentioning of the merge for users and ftp-masters). That
> >  also implies filing an ITP.
> Fixed.

debian/changelog at the moment is again too long, the first paragraph
is enough for a new package.
> >* debian/copyright:
> >  please convert to the new format -- and I think it can be greatly
> >  simplified. IMO there's no reason to mention stuff from older
> >  packages.
> I did not do this.  I did review and take some information from all of the 
> older packages, so I'm not comfortable removing the attribution.  I won't 
> object though if someone else is.

Sorry, but
* it's unreadable at the moment and the information about other
  packages just doesn't belong there
* in the Debian Perl Group we're using the new format, and having
  consistency makes life easier
> >* debian/rules:
> >  this is the debian/rules file from libio-compress-base-perl ?!
> >  I guess it could be simplified but haven't looked in detail
> Yes.  It now needs something for the transitional packages to build, but 
> it's very late and I'm out of energy.

At the moment it's a bit of a mixture between various generations of
debhelper :)

will just not work a) without cow/pbuilder and b) with the next

I just tried the following and it seems to work:


#!/usr/bin/make -f

        dh $@

        dh_auto_configure -- INST_LIB='blib/lib'


(Note that this needs debhelper >= 0.7.50 in debian/control for the
override_* feature.)

Another minor note: a previous version of debian/rules dealt with
pod/FAQ.pod, not sure if this is useful again.

Another simplification would be to
* remove debian/libio-compress-perl.manpages and
* change debian/libio-compress-perl.install to contain

(And I have the hunch that there's an even easier way to work with
this multi-package thingie but I can't remember at the moment.)
> >* debian/control:
> >  - there's "Build-Depends-Indep: [..], libcompress-raw-bzip2-perl
> >    (>=2.020), libcompress-raw-zlib-perl (>= 2.020)" but those are
> >    not in Depends
> fixed.

Thanks. What I just don't know is if we still need the dance with
"(<< ${source:Upstream-Version}.~)" or if a simple "Depends: [..]
libcompress-raw-bzip2-perl (>= 2.020), libcompress-raw-zlib-perl (>=
2.020)" wouldn't be enough. Do you happen to know more about this?
> >  - we need transitional dummy packages for the 4 "old" packages,
> >    depending on the new libio-compress-perl, and
> fixed.

Thanks. IMO I'd change the short and long description, cf. e.g.:


gregoa@nerys:~$ apt-cache --no-all-versions show libmime-perl
Description: transitional dummy package
 This is a dummy package to ease the transition to libmime-tools-perl and can
 be safely removed


> >  - Replaces and Conflicts have then to be versioned as "(<< 2.020-1)"
> fixed.

It seems you missed the -1.
(For background: http://wiki.debian.org/Renaming_a_Package and

While your're there, please also add spaces after ">=" and "<<" where
they are missing.

> >Disclaimer: all this stuff is hurting my brain, so other thoughts are
> >highly appreciated!
> I'm right with you.

I still hope someone else will help and think through these
replace/etc. aspects.

 .''`.   http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG Key IDs: 0x00F3CFE4, 0x8649AA06
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/
 `. `'   Member of VIBE!AT, SPI Inc., fellow of FSFE | http://got.to/quote/
   `-    BOFH excuse #63:  not properly grounded, please bury computer 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: