[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#861649: Newer version uploaded



On Monday 16 October 2017 11:53:08 CEST Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> On 16/10/17 11:22, Gard Spreemann wrote:
> > Not relevant since the upload would be to sid anyway, right?
> 
> FYI, current version is 4.1.1.

Checked and bumped. Thanks.

> >   E: python3-gudhi: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
> >   usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/gudhi.cpython-35m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so
> >   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu> 
> > I admit I'm on thin ice here, but from
> > https://wiki.debian.org/RpathIssue I had the impression that the use
> > of RPATH is OK here since only the python3 executable would be loading
> > the shared object. Am I correct?
> 
> It will import is as a module, no? You should not need rpath for public
> extension modules. Look for usage of `runtime_library_dirs` in the
> definition of the extension module within setup.py.

I've added a patch to give an empty argument to
runtime_library_dirs. The lintian warning went away, and the Python
extension still works.

Thank you.

> > These are very simple example programs only used together with the
> > documentation and their own source code. As such it feels a bit
> > strange for them to have manpages. I could also remove that binary
> > package, if you think that is better.
> 
> Ask yourself whether these are worth shipping. I suspect the examples
> are more useful in source code form than binary.

I've changed the -examples package to just ship sources.

By the way: I'm currently letting dh have its way with whether or not
it compresses the sources, which gives an inconsistent result. Should
I do something about this?

> > This was actually done on purpose. The examples are really meant to be
> > used together with the documentation, and as such I don't think the
> > warning applies here. Please let me know if I'm wrong.
> 
> Did you declare libgudhi-examples as a library package instead of misc
> or doc by any chance (see Section field in d/control)? Then, the warning
> would be accurate. Instead, ship the examples in source code form and
> make the package Section: misc.

Done.


Thanks for your help.



 -- Gard


Reply to: