Today I didn't review all yours remarks. But in the spirit of release
early and release often here goes my today effort.
On 07/02/16 22:01, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 08:40:10PM +0000, Jose M Calhariz wrote:
>> On 06/02/16 23:41, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
>>> Umh, couldn't you turn d/rules to use the dh sequencer?
>> I don't know enough and lintian show many problems with upstream d/rules.
> well, let's fix them, then :)
> Attached there is a d/rules using short dh, may you try it and bend it
> better to the needs of this package?
I managed to make it compile, but for a reason I don't know I needed to
add the following lines:
override_dh_auto_configure:
cp /usr/share/misc/config.guess .
cp /usr/share/misc/config.sub .
dh_auto_configure --parallel
I have tried many ideas but was only this way that it build
> There are some errors, for example lintian complains about
> dependency_libs in the .la files [0], and other stuff.
> though it also fixes things like debian-changelog-file-missing and
> no-copyright-file I otherwise have with the current rules file.
> Another thing: the build log looks really different, there are way more
> lisp-related lines, but I haven't looked at it at all.
> And it's really untested and I think it would enjoy some more work.
>
>>> I anyway see a lot of nowadyas obsolete stuff that could really easily
>>> be removed, for example:
>>>
>>> * all that if/else/endif staff can go away if you stop calling manually
>>> ./configure and rely in dh_auto_configure
>> Done
> though you didn't remove the if/else/endif at the start of d/rules.
Gone
>
>>> * the source targe should follow policy §4.9 (so, named get-orig-source)
>> Removed, not usefull for me.
> cool.
>
>>> * d/changelog
>>> + "Remove upstream debian directory." => what's this? do you mean the
>>> upstream tarball and you removed it? source fomat 3.0 already does
>>> it by itself, i don't understand what you did.
>> I created a commit in git that removes the upstream debian directory.
>> Maybe is not necessary.
> umh now I don't recall if gbp does the wrong thing while importing the
> ustream tarball and do things wrong, but I hope it doesn't. Anyway,
> that's a kind of thing that is not thought to be in d/changelog.
>
>>> * d/control
>>> * maybe you can consider to drop the -dbg package in favour of the
>>> automatically built dbgsym?
>> Done
> cool!
>
>>> * d/menu: drop it?
>> Why?
> https://lintian.debian.org/tags/command-in-menu-file-and-desktop-file.html
Done
>
>>> * d/copyright: consider write a copyright-format 1.0 one? at a first
>>> sight doesn't look too much work.
>> Done
> though it's not compliant, and indeed lintian is noisy on it, please try
> to figure out what's wrong with it and fix it.
> I believe blindly following lintian here is enough, though it would be
> nice if you could understand what's the problem by yourself :)
I fix it, but I don't understand why :-)
>
>>> * once fixed the b-d, I get another ftbfs, with a lisp backtrace ending:
>>> 'error--> (file-error "No such file or directory" "rep/data/tables")'
>>> go figure...
>> Are you building in i386 or amd64?
> amd64.
> though now it builds, umh. ok...
I found a missing bump on Build-depens on rep.
>
>>> * so it seems you have symlinked doc dir. do as it pleases you, but
>>> anyway please drop those manually built .postinst file if their only
>>> use it that one.
>> Droped
> I haven't yet checked, though you need to make sure there is an upgrade
> path, and remember that dpkg doesn't overwrite a symlink while
> installing/upgrading a package. do you remember those symlink_to_dir
> and dir_to_symlink thinghies of the other package?
I remember something. I have to review it.
>
>>> * please try to get a reproducible buildable package, from what I see it
>>> wouldn't be difficult at all.
>>>
>>> there are 57 open bugs, are you telling me none of them get closed by
>>> this upload? :\
>>> I anyway expect some bug triaging done…
>> Will do it.
>
> * d/clean: you are removing config.sub, config.guess, configure and
> libtool. Well,
> 1) theoretically once the package is built the clean target of d/rules
> should bring the tree back to the original state.
> 2) it makes git unnecessarly noisy about deleted files from the tree.
> Just removing those 4 files from the d/clean file is enough, and
> anyway I don't understand what would have been the whole point of
> having them listed there in the first place.
>
> * P: sawfish-lisp-source: maintainer-script-without-set-e postinst
> + and more like that
> * d/rules: please try enabling the hardening build flags
>
>
>
> [0] add here a random rant about static libaries...... can't we just
> drop them... :\ (last time I brought this up others said to keep
> them for our users...... gah!)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature