On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 09:29:55PM +0000, Jose M Calhariz wrote:
> Today I didn't review all yours remarks. But in the spirit of release
> early and release often here goes my today effort.
yay, I definitely approve this ;)
I hadn't gone deeper, just commented on your last changes here.
> 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
that's so weird.
even more in light of the new dh_update_autotools_config which is run
automatically by dh >= 9.20160114 and do exactly that.
Are you testing your package in an update sid chroot?
> I have tried many ideas but was only this way that it build
also, it did build here without them.
> >>> * 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 :-)
ok, I'm going to assume you read all of
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ and
somehow did not understand it.
DEP-5 copyright is RFC 822-compliant file where there are basically 3
types of paragraphs:
* the header paragraph => you know it
* the file paragraphs
* the stand alone license paragraphs
the file paragraph is composed by at least
* Files:
* Copyright:
* License:
in your earlier attempt at it you put a blank line between Copyright and
License, and de-facto created a separated pargraph, totally disconnected
from the previous one. That one by itself was a compliant stand alone
license paragraph, but
1) it was repeated by another one later
2) it was not refereced by a License: line from a file paragraph.
I hope I made the thing at least clearer.
> >>> * please try to get a reproducible buildable package, from what I see it
> >>> wouldn't be difficult at all.
♥ THANK YOU! :D
> >>> there are 57 open bugs, are you telling me none of them get closed by
> >>> this upload? :\
ok, I saw you added some closes: to the bug, and added a line to the
changelog saying that you closed those bugs. meh.
you should explicitly list what you are closing, briefly; probably the
best way is in a indented list, something like
* New upstream version.
+ Fix blabla due to fofo. Closes: #xxxxx
+ Fix ciaciaaicegow. Closes: #yyyyy
And adding to the changelog a sentence like "I closed bugs" is totally
useless, just remove it :)
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
more about me: http://mapreri.org : :' :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature