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

Re: Looking for sponsor: python-llfuse



Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> writes:
> OoO En cette  nuit nuageuse du lundi 13 juin  2011, vers 01:04, Nikolaus
> Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> disait :
>
>>> Or Maintainer: Nikolaus, Uploader: DPMT. And DPMT is:
>>> Debian Python Modules Team <python-modules-team@lists.alioth.debian.org>
>
>> Done. Package is in the DPMT SVN now.
>
> debian/changelog:
>
> This is a bit unusual to  describe non change related things here, but I
> am fine with it.

That was in response to Jacob's request. I'm fine to put it somewhere
else (or not document it at all) :-).

> debian/control:
>
> Since you build  C modules, you only need to  depends on the appropriate
> version   of   python-all-dev   and  python3-all-dev.   python-all   and
> python3-all are dependencies of those.

Fixed.

> I don't think that python-all-dbg and python3-all-dbg will be needed
> to build the package.

To build the debug versions, I'm calling python-dbg setup.py (so I need
python-*-dbg). Is that the wrong thing to do?


> You need to update Vcs-* to the new location.

Fixed, sorry.

> debian/copyright:
>
> Please, use DEP-5 format.
> http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/

Done. I used  http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ as the 
<VERSIONED_FORMAT_URL>, because it says that the format is now fixed. Is
that correct? Some other packages used URLs like
http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?op=file&rev=135,
but these just give 400s now.

> Also, you  say that python-llfuse is  licensed with LGPL 3.  There is no
> such  mention in  the upstream  package. Only  "LGPL". As  upstream, you
> should add a LICENSE file to clarify this.

Done as well. Should I release a new version with just the LICENSE file
added, or can this wait for a regular update (without delaying the
debian package)?


> The python3-llfuse-dbg  does not contain  debug symbols. Only  the debug
> version of the library (llfuse.cpython-32dmu.so).

I'm a bit at a loss here. For some reason, dh_strip puts the
python3-llfuse debugging symbols into the python-llfuse-dbg directory:


$ dh_strip -v -a -ppython-llfuse --dbg-package=python-llfuse-dbg
[...]
	install -d debian/python-llfuse-dbg/usr/lib/debug//usr/lib/python3/dist-packages
	objcopy --only-keep-debug debian/python3-llfuse/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/llfuse.cpython-32mu.so debian/python-llfuse-dbg/usr/lib/debug//usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/llfuse.cpython-32mu.so
	chmod 644 debian/python-llfuse-dbg/usr/lib/debug//usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/llfuse.cpython-32mu.so
	strip --remove-section=.comment --remove-section=.note --strip-unneeded debian/python3-llfuse/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/llfuse.cpython-32mu.so
	objcopy --add-gnu-debuglink debian/python-llfuse-dbg/usr/lib/debug//usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/llfuse.cpython-32mu.so debian/python3-llfuse/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/llfuse.cpython-32mu.so
	objcopy --only-keep-debug debian/python3-llfuse-dbg/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/llfuse.cpython-32dmu.so debian/python-llfuse-dbg/usr/lib/debug//usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/llfuse.cpython-32dmu.so
	chmod 644 debian/python-llfuse-dbg/usr/lib/debug//usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/llfuse.cpython-32dmu.so
	strip --remove-section=.comment --remove-section=.note --strip-unneeded debian/python3-llfuse-dbg/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/llfuse.cpython-32dmu.so
	objcopy --add-gnu-debuglink
	debian/python-llfuse-dbg/usr/lib/debug//usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/llfuse.cpython-32dmu.so
	debian/python3-llfuse-dbg/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/llfuse.cpython-32dmu.so

Shouldn't this command only work on the python-llfuse package?


>> The .c files are now regenerated in debian/rules. I am not regenerating
>> the documentation yet. I understood that this is nice to have but not
>> required, so I wanted to wait until the Sphinx 1.1 hits the archive.
>> When that has happened, it's just a matter of uncommenting one line in
>> debian/rules.
>
> I was also a bit surprised that  so many DD did agree to not rebuild the
> documentation. I would prefer that  the documentation is rebuilt. Why do
> you need Sphinx 1.1?

Sphinx 1.0 cannot extract the function signature for extension modules,
Sphinx 1.1 can (by parsing the first line of the docstring). llfuse does
some postprocessing on these docstrings (to remove C type declarations),
so using Sphinx 1.0 doesn't just silently omit the signatures, but
aborts with an error because of missing hooks for signature
postprocessing.

Discussion:
https://bitbucket.org/birkenfeld/sphinx/issue/564

Relevant changesets:
https://bitbucket.org/birkenfeld/sphinx/changeset/de340a6098c7
https://bitbucket.org/birkenfeld/sphinx/changeset/a8b0ef275438


I also added a sphinx wishlist bug to backport this feature (Bug
#630409).



Best,

   -Nikolaus

-- 
 »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«

  PGP fingerprint: 5B93 61F8 4EA2 E279 ABF6  02CF A9AD B7F8 AE4E 425C


Reply to: