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

Re: SuperLU



Thanks for the hint! Did just that.

Cheers,
Nico

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 6:11 PM Graham Inggs <ginggs@debian.org> wrote:
Hi Nico

You can copy what I did for deal.ii here [1].
The updated version of debhelper is needed so that it understands ddebs.
  The version after 'dh_strip --ddeb-migration' is the new version
number (the one you are uploading) suffixed with a '~'.

Regards
Graham


[1]
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/debian-science/packages/deal.ii.git/commit/?id=a3dd3b46448be9cb2107b1eb4fa0c21adee95fb7


On 23/05/2016 14:51, Nico Schlömer wrote:
>> W: libsuperlu5-dbg: empty-binary-package
>>   Looks like debug symbols automatically went into libsuperlu5-dbgsym,
>>   so libsuperlu5-dbg is redundant (i.e. rename in debian/control. Or
>> specify -dbg as the debug package in debian/rules, e.g. with dh_strip).
>
> If it's build automatically, can't we just get rid of the -dbg entry in
> debian/control altogether?
>
> Cheers,
> Nico
>
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 1:54 PM Nico Schlömer <nico.schloemer@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> That's dodgy how upstream handled the non-free in MATLAB/time.m.  All
>> they did was delete Mathwork's copyright statement. It's on their head.
>>
>> Indeed. All files that are listed as exceptions from the BSD license
>> (except mc64ad.*) in debian/copyright now have a BSD copyright header as
>> well, btw. It very much looks like they are dual-licensed now. Shall we
>> take this for granted? I guess we could remove some complication from
>> debian/copyright with this.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Nico
>>
>> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 1:19 PM Drew Parsons <dparsons@debian.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Should be good to go.
>>>
>>> That's dodgy how upstream handled the non-free in MATLAB/time.m.  All
>>> they did was delete Mathwork's copyright statement. It's on their head.
>>>
>>> Drew
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 2016-05-23 at 10:15 +0000, Nico Schlömer wrote:
>>>> Drew,
>>>>
>>>> 5.2.1 came out yesterday with some of my PRs applied. Can you import
>>>> it please? I'd then go through the remaining issues.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Nico
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 9:43 PM Drew Parsons <dparsons@debian.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 2016-05-20 at 11:00 +0000, Nico Schlömer wrote:
>>>>>>> More important is that some dfsg files are still in the git
>>>>> tree.
>>>>>>> MATLAB/{spypart.m,time.m} and DOC/*ug.pdf.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Aha yes. (Is the user guide really nonfree?)
>>>>>
>>>>> The argument is that the pdf is the useful bit, like a binary
>>>>> program.
>>>>>   Just as we need the source for binary files, for the same reason
>>>>> we
>>>>> want the source (the latex files) for the pdf files.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately, I have no experience with automatically creating
>>>>> dfsg
>>>>>> tarballs, and there's a fair chance I'll do it incorrectly. I'd
>>>>>> appreciate if someone could take over from here.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've tidied up the dfsg handling, listing the reject files in
>>>>> debian/copyright.
>>>>>
>>>>> The package builds fine (and petsc3.7 seems happy with it).
>>>>>
>>>>> The last step is to check lintian,
>>>>>    lintian -i superlu_5.2.0+dfsg1-1_amd64.changes
>>>>>
>>>>> There's a handful of warnings, have a go at fixing them:
>>>>>
>>>>> W: superlu source: dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique
>>>>> (paragraph at line 109)
>>>>>   There are 2 licence short-names "permissive". Give one a distinct
>>>>>   short name from the other. permissive-colamd or something.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> W: superlu source: ancient-standards-version 3.9.5 (current is
>>>>> 3.9.8)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> W: libsuperlu5-dbg: empty-binary-package
>>>>>    Looks like debug symbols automatically went into libsuperlu5-
>>>>> dbgsym,
>>>>>    so libsuperlu5-dbg is redundant (i.e. rename in debian/control.
>>>>> Or
>>>>> specify -dbg as the debug package in debian/rules, e.g. with
>>>>> dh_strip).
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your packaging efforts.
>>>>> Drew
>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Nico
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 12:48 PM Drew Parsons <dparsons@debian.or
>>>>> g>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 2016-05-20 at 09:49 +0000, Nico Schlömer wrote:
>>>>>>>> I've pushed some more changes to [1] (including a patch) and
>>>>> it's
>>>>>>> now
>>>>>>>> compiling and installing alright. I guess a review would be
>>>>> in
>>>>>>> order.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Nico
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1] alioth:/git/debian-science/packages/superlu.git
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>


Reply to: