Hi,
In data lunedì 12 settembre 2016 14:56:12 CEST, juichenieder-debbie@yahoo.co.uk ha scritto:
> root/debian/changelog
> This contains only the line for this package, this seems a bit odd to ditch the
> changelog from before. While Krita technically goes in to debian as a new package,
> it just replaces the older krita package, and I do not presume that upstream have
> started from scratch with krita 3.x. Of course the old-package's changelogs allias
> the entire calligra source package, so a copy-paste not doable, but I would expect
> more than just "Initial Release" as this breaks the flow from the previous version.
> Just something to document that krita has now split from Calligra and thus has been
> repackaged from scratch, so people don't feel so surprised to see an empty changelog.
This is technically the packaging of a new source: in the end, what I
could borrow from the calligra packaging was just the descriptions of
the packages; everything else (rules, build deps, copyright, etc) was
done from scratch.
I could have mentioned "Initial release, split from calligra", but IMHO
was not really true, and anyway it's too late now (if the source is
rejected I can amend it).
> In NEW, I see that you haven't listed krita as closing this bug. Would that help
> speed up the NEW process as this represents only a package split, rather than an
> actually NEW package?
This has almost no change on the processing of the source from the NEW
queue -- what will slow it is the review of the licenses & copyrights
for the huge amount of files (more than 9000) in the source.
Note the upload is targeted to experimental for now -- its upload to
unstable will close the "it's uninstallable" bug for krita (#811432).
> Should the new calligra package reference krita as a suggested package? Or treat it as
> completely separate.
Since I uploaded also calligra (and it's waiting in NEW as well),
I had to comment out the krita dependency in the calligra metapackage
(otherwise if calligra is accepted before krita, that metapackage will
be uninstallable and prevent the migration to testing).
Once both sources are accepted in the archive and migrated to testing
(which means they build fine on all the release architectures, and
there are no critical/RC bugs), I will readd it as recommend or
suggest.
> I notice a lot of commented out lines, personally I hate them in VCS as they
> undermine the reason for using a VCS. If you want to go back and look at old lines,
> use git for that, not comments.
Which ones are you referring to in particular? Most of the occurrences
are proper comments, and the two places which aren't are there for
actual reasons (like point out why libopenexr-dev is not enabled).
> I still don't understand what has changed between this version and the previous to
> fix the depend requirements, I still see ${misc:Depends} and${shlibs:Depends}, so
> won't this hit the same problem as before, or do I miss something with the reason
> calligra got removed before... did the new package depends break BC with regards
> calligra or something like that?
${shlibs:Depends} is the actual sauce of the dependencies: it contains
the list of libraries dependencies of the binaries & libraries in each
binary package. See the man pages of dh_shlibdeps & dpkg-shlibdeps to
know how they are filled, and dh_gencontrol & dpkg-gencontrol to know
how they are used.
--
Pino ToscanoAttachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.