Re: libdbi maintainership needs help
Excerpts from Thomas Goirand's message of Wed Jul 13 06:06:36 -0700 2011:
> On 07/13/2011 08:00 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > I just tried building the 0.8.4-5 package with minimal rules and 3.0 quilt,
> > and it built with a couple of extra files (.install files to put the files
> > in the right place). It also uses dh_autoreconf successfully. See attached
> > patch.
>
> Why did you remove my use of a build folder? It was working perfectly!
Why do you feel a need to use a build folder?
> You are also removing the patch that does:
>
> - CFLAGS="-O20 -ffast-math -D_REENTRANT -fsigned-char
> std=gnu99"
> - PROFILE="-pg -g -O20 -ffast-math -D_REENTRANT
> fsigned-char -std=gnu99";;
> + CFLAGS="-D_REENTRANT -fsigned-char -std=gnu99"
> + PROFILE="-pg -g -D_REENTRANT -fsigned-char std=gnu99";;
>
I renamed it. Its re-added later with .patch instead of .dpatch as it is
no longer a dpatch, but a quilt patch.
> (and same for the configure) Why? It's 100% needed!!!
>
dh_autoreconf handles the config.sub/config.guess patches that you had
embedded in the debian package.
cd $(BUILD_DIR) && CFLAGS="$(CFLAGS)" ./configure --host=$(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE) --build=$(DEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE) --prefix=/usr --mandir=\$${prefix}/share/man --infodir=\$${prefix}/share/info
I'm not sure what this does that debhelper does not do. The resulting
.debs are *identical* as far as I can tell.
> With what I did, dh_autoreconf isn't needed anymore. dh_autoreconf is
> overly complicated, and it's nice to be able to avoid it.
I disagree whole heartedly. dh_autoreconf is well tested and solves the
exact problem that you are solving by manually patching files in the
upstream portion of the package.
>
> Anyway, that's *not* what is needed for this package. What Debian needs
> is fixing the RC bugs, and here, by removing my patch, you are readding
> an issue that I've fixed!!! :)
The idea is to make the package more maintainable. The excellent
stuff you did in debian/rules has been superseded by debhelper now. As
transitions and changes are made to the toolchain in Debian, changes
will be propagated to debhelper before they make it to individually
built package rules files.
libdbi doesn't seem to be special in any regard except the patch to the
build flags which is appropriately in debian/patches. So why would you
want to have such a long explicit rules file? You have stated a few
times that you don't have time for such things. I'm hoping to reduce
the burden is all.
Take it or leave it, but this would also simplify merges and syncs with
Ubuntu so I'm hoping you'll take it. :)
Reply to: