Hi John,
Thanks for the quick feedback.
On 10-01-16 14:08, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 01:04:36PM +0100, Bas Couwenberg wrote:
>> diff -Nru cen64-qt-20150915-alpha/debian/changelog
>> cen64-qt-20150915-alpha/debian/changelog
>> --- cen64-qt-20150915-alpha/debian/changelog 2015-10-28 14:29:56.000000000
>> +0100
>> +++ cen64-qt-20150915-alpha/debian/changelog 2016-01-10 12:38:36.000000000
>> +0100
>> @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
>> +cen64-qt (20150915-alpha-1.1) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
>> +
>> + * Non-maintainer upload.
>> + * Update libquazip build dependency to libquazip5-dev.
>
> You added a new patch under debian/patches/ but did not mention this
> in your changelog. Changelog entries should always mention all changes
> to the package source so reviewers can quickly see what was changed.
Agreed, I should have documented the patch in the changelog too.
>> +--- a/cen64-qt.pro
>> ++++ b/cen64-qt.pro
>> +@@ -63,7 +63,11 @@ win32|macx|linux_quazip_static {
>> + } else {
>> + # Debian distributions use a different library name for Qt5 quazip
>> + system("uname -a | grep -E 'Debian|Ubuntu' > /dev/null") {
>> +- LIBS += -lquazip-qt5
>> ++ system("dpkg -l | grep libquazip5-dev | grep ^ii > /dev/null")
>> {
>> ++ LIBS += -lquazip5
>> ++ } else {
>> ++ LIBS += -lquazip-qt5
>
> Do we actually still need to support the old package naming scheme? If
> both Debian and Ubuntu are now using the new naming scheme, we most
> likely don't need to support the old scheme. Might be useful for ports
> though.
I mostly kept support for both with backports in mind, if you have no
need for backports you can also drop the Debian/Ubuntu specific handling
and use -lquazip5 for all.
> I'll have a look in any case and will adopt your changes.
Thanks!
Kind Regards,
Bas
--
GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1
Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1
