Bug#787861: review: polyml
Control: owner -1 !
Control: tags -1 moreinfo
Hi James,
1) please join the debian-science team and ask them an ack for the upload
2) please convert in team upload the package
3) please close 561763 in the changelog
4) please merge the two changelogs together
5) please remove rules.old
6) the polyml.install shouldn't have the static library, right?
7) "i386 sparc powerpc amd64 armel armhf" do you have any reason for not trying to build on "any"?
8) did you test reverse dependencies?
apt-cache rdepends package
reverse-depends -b src:package
can give you some hints
9) licensecheck * -r shows many licenses not LGPL-2.1+
10) debian/menu please remove (menu is deprecated since a month or two)
11)
usr/share/man/man1/poly.1*
usr/share/man/man1/polyc.1*
usr/share/man/man1/polyimport.1*
they belong to dh_installmanpages, not dh_install
the other stuff might look good, I still need to check a build&run of the package.
cheers,
G.
Il Mercoledì 7 Ottobre 2015 12:21, James Clarke <jrtc27@jrtc27.com> ha scritto:
Hi,
I believe I have addressed the changes you mentioned in http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/polyml/polyml_5.5.2-0.2.dsc, and would be grateful if you could please review it.
Thanks,
James
> On 6 Oct 2015, at 10:54, James Clarke <jrtc27@jrtc27.com> wrote:
>
> Firstly sorry for not replying, I hadn’t subscribed to the bug so I was never emailed a copy of your message.
>
> I figured it wasn’t really common to have NMUs like this, but given the fact that the package is not orphaned but its maintainers have not replied to bug reports, I thought this was one of the few options; I don’t really care how the newer versions are uploaded, so long as they get uploaded eventually!
>
> As far as I can tell from `apt-cache depends`, nothing outside of the polyml source package depends on any of the binary packages in it.
>
> 1) makes sense to go via experimental
> 2,3,4) I shall see what I can do
>
> In case you couldn’t tell I’m very new to this, so thanks for taking the time to go through the details.
>
> Thanks,
> James
>
>> On 25 Sep 2015, at 17:32, Gianfranco Costamagna <costamagnagianfranco@yahoo.it> wrote:
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA256
>>
>> Hi, this is really too much for an NMU.
>>
>> Did you test reverse dependencies?
>>
>> you are bumping shlibs, so you need to be sure to have requested a
>> transition slot on release.debian.org (use reportbug against it to ask
>> one).
>>
>> I would do rather a team upload instead, and I would appreciate:
>>
>> 1) an upload to experimental to test rebuilds
>> 2) converting to dh format
>> 3) use of autoreconf instead of autotools-dev
>> 4) convert to multiarch?
>>
>> I can check the other things later if you still are interested.
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> G.
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v2
>>
>> iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWBXcZAAoJEPNPCXROn13Z3roP/2GHZv1CWdA2K4/74IfvY3/+
>> vfCcXVKLp31bgaa41tTvV2oV2dSbAiTlqSUwnZFJygFaqp6eXuweVVPdf0cT5IfV
>> ZTG3w3n0JcK/u/cgu0nvHm6Cy/ENb9LD/YIRJ7ZTI8u5AiiVpGGAc+WY0j9150Bc
>> NyWYw8HMFxav3tR6vPjh0R2I1QgN7WjHbZLmgIqlaJbZgjqMu1O4lYzhfn/wL3ub
>> LcJYCHk0BI5pB48ABfx7fLs0DrvOaEoQ63l5mM1uX6BgpAiXdAQSY5qE5enUSH6a
>> Aq60l7E3DxeKERUnTuGMRj3529abSDRxteAMMTP2IlXoKYV2h5XHCJlLmbjunKV1
>> KDAqwoZGQpia81jM6hKdZbbbOZfpzzevW14yj2x0qYQEVyMv+7lSDP6p1o7VHYyL
>> zSNKGzquIGcCeTkDQ1pTeuYm3HPsuIjmXD1saG2qInE6F9ccie0n8AT8WEInGGMd
>> UHcBu/cHhyyBiThUcZhgQEuU+Pf1kRy0f9SbPTibFtlvKf3HOgB2DD018WK7JFBB
>> rF46I2Jr4V5TbHh3nmPhJhk46MFjDyxfOW9rE60jpeJcopMoK6xBUTBlM1mwQrud
>> JGrjUztjgDd8BX+/LDzr4IZXPc67LcQghrYAUOgzNhe/jAI9gnsp0JTi7rwaEN82
>> hm7eOneGezYiwC18gEFH
>> =tPZ/
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>
Reply to: