Bug#685209: unblock: ball/1.4.1+20111206-4
Hello,
On 08/18/2012 12:48 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
>
> On Sat, 2012-08-18 at 12:05 +0200, Steffen Moeller wrote:
>> The uploader is upstream who kindly added a patch to fix a FTBFS.
>
> "A patch" is somewhat of a misnomer, given:
>
> patches/0001-Adjust-compiler-settings.patch | 22
> patches/0001-missingSigned.patch | 36
> patches/0002-fix_python_sip_const.patch | 52
> patches/0003-Add-Copyconstructor-to-String.patch | 40
> patches/0004-Fix-compilation-of-hashMap.h-on-gcc-4.7.patch | 35
> patches/0005-Modify-BALL_RELEASE_STRING-macro.patch | 22
> patches/0006-Fix-compilation-of-binaryFileAdaptor-with-gcc-4.7.patch | 79
> patches/0007-Fixed-the-FPT-version-of-bond-order-assignment.patch | 447 ++++
> patches/0008-Added-MAX_PENALTY-option-to-bond-order-assignment.patch | 975 ++++++++++
> patches/0009-Fixed-a-bug-in-the-AssignBondOrderProcessor.patch | 271 ++
> patches/0010-Fix-compilation-of-FTPBondOrderStrategy-Fixes-451.patch | 138 +
> patches/0011-Fix-compilation-of-Python-bindings-with-new-sip-vers.patch | 25
> patches/fix_python_sip_const.patch | 41
> patches/missingSigned.patch | 26
>
> The last two appear to have been replaced by the second and third, which
> is annoying but not the end of the world. The first patch seems to have
> disappeared entirely.
>
> There's also a change to maintainers / uploaders which isn't mentioned.
The main guy is the same. You are referring to the Debian Med maintenance.
Hm. Right, this could have been mentioned in the changelog. The Debian
source code always resided there, though, it is not really a change.
Andreas of Debian Med had asked for it publicly on the list.
> While I'm happy to believe that a number of the patches are required to
> fix building with gcc-4.7, these at least don't look like they are:
>
> patches/0007-Fixed-the-FPT-version-of-bond-order-assignment.patch | 447 ++++
> patches/0008-Added-MAX_PENALTY-option-to-bond-order-assignment.patch | 975 ++++++++++
> patches/0009-Fixed-a-bug-in-the-AssignBondOrderProcessor.patch | 271 ++
>
> Indeed some of those look like they may well introduce ABI changes if
> the changes are reflected in libball.
>
> This obviously isn't a gcc 4.7 fix:
>
> patches/0011-Fix-compilation-of-Python-bindings-with-new-sip-vers.patch | 25
>
> It may well be needed for the package to build in unstable now, but it's
> certainly not covered by "Fix compilation with g++ >= 4.7".
>From the description of those bugs I tend to agree that indeed that is more
than the FTBFS required. Upstream mostly works on version 2 of BALL now, so
knowing whatever ships with Wheezy now to be worked with for a while, I presume
Andreas (upstream) to just have wanted some of the later experiences
backported. A respective description in the changelog is missing.
> Was simply forcing building with gcc 4.6 considered as an option?
I did not know myself this was allowed for anything in stable. The bond-order
changes were apparently important. With my Debian Med hat on, I am always
eager to have such close ties with upstream so Debian gets the best that is
possible, not only something that compiles.
I understand that you see difficulties to accept the package for Wheezy
as it is. Would it help you to have the debian/changelog updated with the
maintainer change and a description about those changes to the bond order?
Many thanks and regards,
Steffen
Reply to: