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

Bug#861649: Newer version uploaded



On 16/10/17 15:39, Gard Spreemann wrote:
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.

I believe that's wise.

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?

Yes, I'd advise to override dh_compress to exclude the examples from compression.

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.

No problem. Glad to see your packaging work is progressing.

Ghis


Reply to: