Bug#227525: Bug#280409: digikam: New upstream release 0.7 is available
On Friday 12 November 2004 23:13, Mark Purcell wrote:
> Achim,
>
> Sorry about that I found the ITP's, kipi-plugins is the changelog -1 ago which
> won't get picked up :-) and digikamimageplugins doesn't have an IPT referred
> in the changelog.
Right as I mentioned in my last e-mail only latest kalyxo pkgs have the close
ITP entry. Only after I RFS you I tought now it's really it's time to ITP ;)
I havn't touched digikam* since them so ITP close is only on my local
hard disk.
>
> I have now been able to build all your packages in a sarge enviroment without
> any major issues, there are a few minor issues, but digikam is running great.
Same here. But digikam and digikamimageplugins need work (have a look
at (debian/TODO)
> Would you like to have a look at the minor issues, or should I just upload
> into the Debian unstable, noting the libraries will take a little while to
> propogate.
Uploading libkipi* libkexif and kipi-plugins is fine with me.
Only change, please remove the ~kalyxo* from changelog line 1.
$ dpkg --compare-versions 0.1-1~kalyxo1 lt 0.1-1 && echo okay
okay
works in sarge already. So upgrade to 0.1-1 will be fine even
for sarge people pulling KDE out of sid into sarge.
> Mark
>
> After a better look at your packages I see some lintian issues:
>
> The ~ in package versions isn't yet accepted until AFTER sarge is released, so
> we need to revise the package versions.
Yeah, the stragegie was stick with ~kalyxo* for outside upload and
to remove on for the initial upload to debian.
> E: libkipi source: bad-version-number 0.1-2~kalyxo1
> E: libkipi0-dev: bad-version-number 0.1-2~kalyxo1
> E: libkipi0-dev: bad-version-in-relation depends: libkipi0 (= 0.1-2~kalyxo1)
> E: libkipi0: bad-version-number 0.1-2~kalyxo1
>
> E: libkexif source: bad-version-number 0.1-2~kalyxo1
> E: libkexif0-dev: bad-version-number 0.1-2~kalyxo1
> E: libkexif0-dev: bad-version-in-relation depends: libkexif0 (= 0.1-2~kalyxo1)
> E: libkexif0: bad-version-number 0.1-2~kalyxo1
>
> E: kipi-plugins source: bad-version-number 0.0.cvs20041110-1~kalyxo2
> E: kipi-plugins: bad-version-number 0.0.cvs20041110-1~kalyxo2
>
> Why does kimdaba have build-deps on versioned libraries? This should not be
> necessary. In general the package should only build-depend on the -dev
> package without versions (unless very necessary) and only depend on the
> libraries during build time.
AFAIR he used a code snippet from new maintainer guide to determine
the build-deps. I'll leave the details to him.
>
> dpkg-checkbuilddeps: Unmet build dependencies: libc6 (>= 2.3.2.ds1-18 )
> libc6-dev (>= 2.3.2.ds1-18 ) libpng12-0 (>= 1.2.5.0-8 ) libpng12-dev (>=
> 1.2.5.0-8 )
>
> David. Are you intending to follow through on your IPT for kimdaba? Or are you
> happy for the IPT to be taken over by Achim? (Bug#227525)
No, no, no. That kimdaba is in my repo is just because david wanted
to provide a kipi enabled kimdaba version and because David hadn't found
the time to sponsor I offered to host if in 'my' archive until kipi
pkgs entry sid.
I contacted also the other DD of kipi apps gwenview and showview.
but AFAIK (should check again) there no stable release and they
didn't ask me about an update yet (I'll assume they read kde-image
list and therefore know what I do ;)
>
> W: kimdaba source: changelog-should-mention-nmu
Not true for david ;)
> W: kimdaba source: source-nmu-has-incorrect-version-number 2.0-2kipi1
> E: kimdaba source: depends-on-build-essential-package-without-using-version
> libc6-dev [build-depends: libc6-dev]
>
> W: digikam source: maintainer-upload-has-incorrect-version-number 0.7-0.1
yeah, sorry. This release as a quick upload to experimental
just for you because I used it here already sucessfully with-
out checking build msg.
> E: digikam: binary-without-manpage digikam
> W: digikam: non-dev-pkg-with-shlib-symlink usr/lib/libdigikam.so.0.0.0
> usr/lib/libdigikam.so
This are there since 0.5 and 0.6 days respectively. There was a linetan
file suppressing them but I decided that I better get reminded again until
the pkg is ready.
libdigikam is needed by digikam and the imageplugins. Upstream AFAIK never
plan to keep some sort of back/forward compatibility. they'll just release
a new digikamimageplugins pkg if API changes. As long a digikamimageplugins
is the only user of libdigikam.so and I will not split it out. Simply
pkg overkill at the moment.
With respect to the manpage I want to ask kde-doc again about the
status of their manpage integration effort. I've not decided yet
im roff of sgml is the way to write it.
Achim
--
To me vi is Zen. To use vi is to practice zen. Every command is
a koan. Profound to the user, unintelligible to the uninitiated.
You discover truth everytime you use it.
-- reddy@lion.austin.ibm.com
Reply to: