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

Bug#459625: sponsor for libdmtx



Hi...

On Sat, Mar 08, 2008 at 05:17:21PM -0800, Todd A. Jacobs wrote:
: 
: Thanks again for merging the bugs. I have updated all packages, and
: lintian now only reports:
: 
:     $ lintian libdmtx_0.4.0+svn102-2_i386.changes
:     W: libdmtx source: native-package-with-dash-version
:     W: libdmtx0: non-dev-pkg-with-shlib-symlink usr/lib/libdmtx.so.0.0.0 usr/lib/libdmtx.so
: 
: which seem like spurious warnings to me. You can grab the latest
: packages from here:
:
:     deb http://www2.codegnome.org:59321/codegnome-debs/ sid contrib non-free
:     deb-src http://www2.codegnome.org:59321/codegnome-debs/ sid contrib non-free

The first one can only pass if the debian/ directory are included in the
official distribution, but in
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/libdmtx/libdmtx-0.4.0.tar.gz?download
the debian/ directory is not included, so it must go in the .diff.gz, also the
svn102 changes. I see that the debian/ directory is in the svn repository :)

The changes are easy: just dowload libdmtx-0.4.0.tar.gz and rename to
libdmtx_0.4.0.orig.tar.gz. Then I'd rename the version and debian revision
to 0.4.0-2+svn102, so it is clear that official version is 0.4.0. Debian
shouldn't ship an unofficial version (0.4.0+svn102) if there is not a good
reason for that. The libdmtx project is alive and active, so I don't see
the point for bypassing them.

the second one... if you run lintian with "-Ii" options it is well explained:

W: libdmtx0: non-dev-pkg-with-shlib-symlink usr/lib/libdmtx.so.0.0.0
usr/lib/libdmtx.so
N:
N:   Although this package is not a `-dev' package, it installs a
N:   `libsomething.so' symbolic link referencing the corresponding shared
N:   library. When the link doesn't include the version number, it is used
N:   by the linker when other programs are built against this shared
N:   library.
N:   
N:   Shared libraries are supposed to place such symbolic links in their
N:   respective `-dev' packages, so it is a bug to include it with the main
N:   library package.
N:   
N:   However, if this is a small package which includes the runtime and the
N:   development libraries, this is not a bug. In the latter case, please
N:   override this warning.
N:   
N:   Refer to Policy Manual, section 8.4 for details.
N:

libdmtx has a libdmtx-dev package, now it only includes the headers for
compiling; static library libdmtx.a and the "shlib-symlink" must go also in
the -dev.  BTW, libdmtx.3.gz must also go in the -dev package, as it is
only needed in development.
 
: and let me know if they pass muster. I'm happy to continue maintaining
: the libdmtx packages, and will certainly look into the Debian python
: packaging issues for the next release.

Well... after playing around with python packaging a bit, I think it is not
very important. I've tried packaging it with cdbs and it is not working
well because this is not a python specific package. I prefer to have a good
package without python bindings that nobody uses yet.

I send you attached the watch file for the package. Include it in the
debian/ directory. With it, you can use "uscan" to see the upstream status:

$ uscan --report
Processing watchfile line for package libdmtx...
Newest version on remote site is 0.4.0, local version is 0.4.0+svn102
libdmtx: remote site does not even have current version

The watch file is used in the qa.debian.org site:
http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rover%40debian.org&comaint=yes so
you can see easily ("watch" column) if the package is updated to the
upstream last release.

Salud,
-- 
Roberto Lumbreras           .''`.            
                    <rover : :' : debian.org>
Debian Developer           `. `'             
                             `-              
version=3
http://sf.net/libdmtx/libdmtx-?_?([\w+\d+\.]+|\d+)(?:\.tar|\.tgz)(?:\.gz|\.bz2|)

Reply to: