[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Packaging and sponsoring of ompl (Was: r3898 - in /projects/science/trunk/debian-science/tasks: robotics robotics-dev)

Hi Andreas,

A Dimecres, 30 d'octubre de 2013, Andreas Tille va escriure:
> > Ok, but from the packager point of view, it helps you to see how many 
> > you have worked before. I can delete whatever you think convenient, but I 
> > began to package it with one version of the library and changed it. So, I 
> > tried to document it. Can I leave the entries but change it from unstable 
> If it is helpful for you there is no rule that would forbid to keep the
> entries.  I just heard from ftpmaster that they might become distracted
> to read irrelevant stuff and I personally like to keep their workload as
> small as possible.  I'm not sure whether this opinion is valid these
> days any more.  So if you really think it is helpful - this will not
> stop me from sponsering in the end.

yes, to me it's helpfull. However I doubt about the first version of the 
package to put in debian. The "normal" thing should be -1, not -5.

> > >   - Pre-Depends: dpkg (>= 1.15.6~)
> > >     What is the rationale for this?  Usually it should not be needed.
> > >   - Please give
> > >        cme fix dpkg-control
> > >     a try.  I guess you will like the result.
> > 
> > First of all, I must admit that I don't understand what are you asking me 
> > the dpkg-control. 
> Well, the usage of configmodel has nothing to do with Pre-Depends or 
> It is just a unique formatting (that's why I used different items im my 

So? I'm sorry Andreas, but I still don't understand you ....

> > I put this field because I checked the generated packages with "lintian -
> > +pedantic". And then, I got a lintian warning like:
> > 
> > N:    The package contains a preinst maintainer script that uses
> > N:    dpkg-maintscript-helper but does not declare a versoned pre-
> > N:    on dpkg (>= that provides that script.
> > 
> > 
> > so, I do that.
> Well, due to the missing pristine-tar I did not yet builded the package.
> I have no idea what (possible false positives) lintian is producing in
> pedantic mode (and I actually do not use this lintian level).  Your
> debian/ dir does not contain any preinst maintainer script and so
> (without testing) I simply assume that lintian is wrong here.  The
> Pre-Depends field should be *realy* rarely used and +pedantic lintian
> messages are a weak reason to do so.  Please re-read the docs when
> Pre-Depends should really be used.

Ok, I can review it. I will ask to the dpkg maintainer (a catalan guy too ;-) 

> > > pristine-tar branch is missing:
> > >   - If you imoprt the orig.tar.gz please use
> > >       git import-orig --pristine-tar 
> > >     to make sure your sponsor / team member can easily recreate a byte
> > >     identical tarball.
> > 
> > Ok, the problem I found is that the official version got some problems 
that I 
> > report to upstream and changed it in mercurial. Ti me is ok the version 
> > the commit hash, so I imported that one. But it seems I forget some step. 
> > solve it soon.
> OK.  Just ping me - favourably via an entry at SoB Wiki page.  I just
> verified that after my changes the package arrived at the according
> tasks page[1].

Well, just done. I had the upstream branch with the needed tag, but no the 
pristine-tar branch. I hope that it would be ok now.



Linux User 152692

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: