Hallo Andreas,
On Fri Jan 10, 2025 at 7:39 AM CET, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Am Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 04:51:07PM +0100 schrieb Maarten van Gompel:
> > I updated several of our packages to the latest upstream releases and would like to
> > again request sponsorship for upload:
>
> Thanks a lot for your work on these packages. I had a (short!) look on
> these.
Thanks for taking a look and all the feedback!
> As a general remark: These old links to anonscm are working due
> to redirects. However, it would be great if you'd rather use the salsa
> links as per the Vcs fields specified by the packages. Its irritating
> to read those old URLs.
> > * https://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/libticcutils.git
I see, I took the easy path and had copied them from a similar mail
a few years ago ...
> I had a look into this and realised Standard-Version was not bumped to
> 4.7.0 and debhelper compat level was 12 instead of the latest one (13).
> What I'm usually doing is simply running
> routine-update
> (inside the package with the same name) which does everything for you.
> It also ensures that the new upstream tarball is injected into
> pristine-tar branch (which was not the case and which I did manually).
>
> Switching to debhelper compat level to 13 "broke" the build due to the
> fact that now dh_missing --fail-missing is default and you need to
> specify packages that are intentionally not installed in
> debian/not-installed. I did so for the *.la package. However, as you
> can see inside the build log in Salsa[1] there are some manpages
> installed by the upstream install target which do not end up in the
> binary Debian packages. Since I do not know whether it makes more sense
> inside the lib or libdevel package - or whether these packages make sense
> at all and should rather be listed in not-installed (or whether there
> might be some option for an additional ticcutils-tools package?) I left
> this for your kind inspection.
Right, I see what you mean, I went through all of the packages, updated
the debhelper compat level and the standards version, and added anything
that came up to non-installed (basically mostly *.la files following
your example). For libfolia I added an extra 'folialint' package with
the a binary that is shipped with it.
> Since these packages are depending from the first one I did not
> continued. If you want to do your final sponsor a favour please
> set the target distribution of those packages to "UNRELEASED" again
> and run `routine-update -f` on them (if you do not set UNRELEASED
> routine-update will create a new changelog entry which you do not
> want).
Done, I reverted them to UNRELEASED and updated them (there was no
routine-update in debian testing though, so I did it manually)
I hope they're now in a better state for upload.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
--
Maarten van Gompel
Digital Infrastructure, Humanities Cluster,
Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (KNAW)
web: https://proycon.anaproy.nl
gpg: 0x39FE11201A31555C
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature