Re: Mpich 1/2/3
Torquil, some suggestions on packaging:
I think it is better:
1) to use compat-level 9
2) dh instead of cdbs, debian/rules will be shorter and more clear in this case;
3) copyright-file in DEP-5 format;
4) DEP-3 for patches
5) postinst and prerm scripts should be inspected.
If you want, I can try to help with some of points.
Regards,
Anton
2013/5/26 Torquil Macdonald Sørensen <torquil@gmail.com>:
> Yes, I have uploaded the mpich 3.0.3 sources to the upstream branch in the
> git repository, as well as made some changes in debian/ to make it work. I
> might have a few more small changes, though, in addition to uploading the
> 3.0.4 upstream sources which are now available. E.g. perhaps upping the
> Debian standards version and including an earlier NMU upload in the
> changelog.
>
> I have changed the source name to mpich in the git repository, and have also
> added a few dummy transitional packages since the binary packages will also
> change names a bit due to the name change and due to an increase in the
> library soname.
>
> Despite the fact that the existence of the transitional packages seems to
> give a smooth upgrade on my system, I am of course not 100% sure that the
> scheme I have deviced is optimal, since this is a bit new to me.
>
> Best regards
> Torquil Sørensen
>
Reply to: