On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 16:55:15 +0000, Chris Knadle wrote: > Tino Mettler: > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 15:17:50 +0000, Chris Knadle wrote: > > > > [...] > > > >> I'm using git-buildpackage along with pristine-tar. gitpkg has a few > >> things > >> I consider peculiarities. > > > > So does git-buildpackage in my opinion. :-) > > It can, yes. Especially bad is when I've seen upstream git repositories are > imported directly that contain sub-modules. *shudder*
My fundamental problem with git-buildpackage is that patches to the upstream source are kept in files, not in git commits, which is, for me, one of the main benefits from using git. Yes, I know there is gbp pq, but still... > > I contacted upstream if there is a way to provide CPPFLAGS without > > messing with the upstream source (e.h. Rules.mk). > > Okay. I don't see modifying Rules.mak as a big deal, but I'm fine with > avoiding it if it can be avoided. I'll just use your change for now. > > Another missing item is the current policy standards version. I'll > > check if the version bump is ok without further changes to the package, > > but it would be nice if you could double check this. > > I already did that. Thanks for that. So the list of pending changes on my side: 1. Incorporate your patch with spelling errors 2. Incorporate a fix for the lintian warning regarding the BSD license I also have some remarks on your package after I glaced over the changes. 1. You removed source/git-patches, which I consider a bad thing as it would break my setup for gitpkg. 2. It looks as if you intended to fix the lintian warning copyright-refers-to-deprecated-bsd-license-file by just removing the reference to /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD. In my unserstanding, the full text to the license needs to be supplied in debian/copyright instead. 3. The above change to debian/copyright is missing in the changelog Regards, Tino
