Bug#683746: rspamd packaging
Hi Vsevolod,
On Sat, 2012-08-04 at 23:53 +0400, Vsevolod Stakhov wrote:
> Thanks for taking care of it! I'm using this package for my machines,
> but I'm not very familiar with debian packaging policies unfortunately.
Hmmm, do you really want to learn and package it? Learning is always
good, I don't want to hijack it from you.
> It's strange as rspamd is built with -fpic -fPIC flags if they are
> supported on the targeted architecture. How can I repeat this bug using
> my debian system?
Sure, I've seen that you use -fpic and -fPIC as well for compilation.
The patch I've sent to you contains everything. Just uncomment the
export DEB_BUILD_MAINT_OPTIONS=hardening=+all
line in debian/rules . I think one of your source files might not be
compiled with the PIC flags and that's the problem.
> Library is only used for rspamd client (rspamc), so maybe it would be
> better to link it statically for debian package? I think a development
> package is only useful when there is any external software that uses the
> normal package's API.
I do agree with your lines. Either make the binary statically linked
and without the header file or consider the package split. Do you intend
to use plug-ins or whatever external to spamc? There's no problem if
nobody else will use the separated library, but it'll be rejected from
the official archives if you keep it as-is.
> Acknowledged. So on upgrades of this package I should only inlcude lines
> like 'Update to version x.x.x', rigth?
Sure, 'initial release', 'new upstream release', 'fixed compilation on
64 bit machines' or anything related to the packaging itself is OK. The
code related ones like 'added IPv6 support', 'many bugfixes', 'rework
events system' and 'write plugin for ...' are not. The latter ones can
go to toplevel_dir/ChangeLog with a date and version number added.
Cheers,
Laszlo/GCS
Reply to: