One more interation. On 08/02/16 21:57, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > 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. As you may see in d/rules, I found another workaround. This time I believe that is correct. >>>>> * 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 :) > I have reviewed all the bugs, so I am closing what I more certain that is fixed by 1.11. Kind regards Jose M Calhariz
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature