Dear David, Thank you for revising your work in light of my review. We're too late to get 4Pane into stretch, so there's no longer any time pressure on this review process. So I'd like to reply regarding only the Bakefile issue, since that's the biggest blocker to uploading this. Once we've resolved that, I'll check through all the other points in my previous review, and your replies to them. (Also, by the time the ftp-masters are accepting NEW packages again, I will be a DD, so I can actually do the upload for you.) On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 06:17:04PM +0000, David Hart wrote: > >10. .build/DONT_README (heh) explains that the Bakefile tool is required > >to regenerate the build system. I.e. the preferred format for > >modification of the buildsystem is not by editing Makefile.in, but by > >changing some other files and running Bakefile > > No, that's the way that Makefile.in was initially created, and it would be a > convenient way to make major changes to it. But most of the time I edit > Makefile.in by hand (as I just did when removing some unused bitmaps) and for > normal building, even with dh_autoreconf, bakefile itself is irrelevant. As you said, "it would be a convenient way to make major changes to it" -- that makes it the preferred format for modification. By analogy, suppose that a .png was exported from an .svg. In many cases, it will be more convenient to edit the .png directly (e.g. converting the image to greyscale with convert(1)). But the .svg must be included to satisfy DFSG. > >(is Makefile.in the only file that Bakefile outputs?). > > There are also the 3 .m4 files in AddExtraM4Files.patch, which _are_ > needed for dh_autoreconf. > > >As before, this is a violation of DFSG. I think you need to package > >Bakefile for Debian, unless you can think of a way around this. > > As above I don't believe that's necessary. I'd add that bakefile was created > for the wxWidgets toolkit, which uses it far more often than does 4Pane. Yet > the wxWidgets packages e.g. libwxgtk3.0-dev don't include bakefile and their > maintainers presumably don't feel that violates DFSG. I suspect that those other packages are buggy, then. I note that the ftp-masters have stated that their review process does not operate on precedent: the presence of any given package in the archive does not itself constitute a reason for accepting another. Why not just go ahead and package Bakefile? It might be useful to someone else. You don't have to invoke it during the 4Pane build; it just needs to be possible for someone else to get everything they need to do so from the Debian mirrors. I will review and sponsor your packaging of Bakefile. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature