Hi Jonathan, On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 18:37:19 +0000, Jonathan Wiltshire <jmw@debian.org> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 12:39:56AM +0100, Stephen Kitt wrote: > > I would like to know if the following changes to gcc-mingw-w64 would > > be acceptable for Jessie, before uploading the package to unstable; > > they fix #773342, a serious bug filed against mingw32 (upgrading from > > Wheezy causes the package to lose its copyright file). > > Yes, with a small query: > > > --- a/debian/rules > > +++ b/debian/rules > > @@ -254,6 +254,9 @@ binary-indep: build-indep > > dh_link -i > > dh_compress -i > > dh_fixperms -i > > +# This is the first version where we fix up the /usr/share/doc/mingw32 link > > +# Once this is in the archive we'll switch to a first_split_version-style approach > > + echo dir_to_symlink /usr/share/doc/mingw32 /usr/share/doc/gcc-mingw-w64-base $(deb_version)~ mingw32 > debian/mingw32.maintscript > > dh_installdeb -i > > Is there a reason for not just creating debian/migw32.maintscript in the > package? Why generate it as part of the build? I generate it during the build because I don't know before then what version I'll end up with (in Debian and in derivatives); the binary version is generated using the version of gcc-4.9-source used for the build as well as the version of gcc-mingw-w64. For the upload after this one I'll take into account the version that actually ended up being used and do something more permanent based on that. Is that a valid reason? One side-effect of this is that an upload to unstable right now would build binary packages with a 4.9.2-8+14.3 version (except on mipsel which would get 4.9.2-5+14.3), so that mingw32 package would specify 4.9.2-8+14.3~ as the version before which the directory-to-symlink transition needs handled; whereas an upload to t-p-u would build 4.9.1-19+14.3 and specify 4.9.1-19+14.3~. I'm not worried about this for two reasons: dpkg-maintscript-helper handles this well, and mingw32 will be dropped after Jessie anyway. > > Note that this package builds using gcc-4.9-source, and allowing it to > > transition from unstable to Jessie would effectively mean pulling > > unstable's gcc-4.9 source into Jessie too. If necessary I can upload > > to unstable and upload again to t-p-u once the unstable package has > > aged enough. > > Let's go with your second plan please - fix in unstable and then upload to > t-p-u later. OK, thanks! Regards, Stephen
Attachment:
pgpwBvlRZuICQ.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature