On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 07:46:34AM +0200, Gürkan Myczko wrote: > Hi Tobias > > The BTS will probably not get a copy as it was closed, i'd need to bts > reopen 972073 (and unarchive when it was archived), > but I'll skip that for now. > > On 13.10.2020 21:26, Tobias Frost wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 09:44:17AM +0200, Gürkan Myczko wrote: > > > > > > * Package name : cool-retro-term > > > Version : 1.1.1+git20200723-1 > > > Upstream Author : Filippo Scognamiglio <flsco...@gmail.com> > > > * URL : https://github.com/Swordfish90/cool-retro-term > > > * License : GPL-3, MIT, OFL-1.1, dfsg-compliant-text, > > > BSD-3-clause > > > * Vcs : > > > https://salsa.debian.org/myczko-guest/cool-retro-term > > > Section : x11 > > > > Uploaded, but a question: > > > > README.source says it is repackaged, due to dfsg topics. However, I'm > > missing the dfsg suffix and also a Files-Excluded section in > > d/copyright. > > How is the repacking done? > > The qmltermwidget part is +ds, and the fonts +dfsg, sorry I completely > forgot > to add +dfsg, will do so with the next update. (I had forgotten to reflect > the > repackaging with +dfsg/+ds for a long time, but recently re-added it to > later > sponsored uploads). And I'm aware of Files-Excluded section as well, have it > at some places, will need to add for all others where README.source > documents > removals) > > > Other nitpicks: > > > > (Though, it is strange that dh_missing fails on you; not sure how > > dh_missing > > can cause a file to be overwritten.) > > Very strange indeed, I did not investigate, just override it for now, to get > rid of the RC bug. > > > Something for subsequent uploads (not checked if legit) > > X: fonts-hermit: package-contains-no-arch-dependent-files > > X: fonts-proggy: package-contains-no-arch-dependent-files > > X: fonts-terminus: package-contains-no-arch-dependent-files > > Having seen that of course I tried to change it to Arch: all, however that > would fail with: > http://phd-sid.ethz.ch/debian/cool-retro-term/2323/cool-retro-term_1.1.1%2Bgit20200723-1_amd64.build > > Even more strange, if you have a tip/pointer/hint/idea, I'd be glad to get > rid of those.
This seems -- from a quick look -- related to the dh_missing problem: They look _very_ similar. POSSIBLY a build system issue; maybe it does not like parallel? (A quick test built here with forcing dh to non-parallel builds, but fails later dh_missing complaining about not installed files. This dh_install smells a bit like that there are hidden bugs in the packageing.) > > P: cool-retro-term source: maintainer-manual-page > > debian/cool-retro-term.1 > > manpage forwarded? > > Good point, let me check: > Well, no, yes, upstream hasn't done a release for some time, and he ships > his own packaging/debian directory > with a manpage there, which is slightly different. I will need to think > about what to do here. I believe his > is better, but will need to compare/diff and update accordingly. Something > for a future/next upload. upstream should change that location of the manpage, I guess. (Or drop the debian directory altogether.) Point them to the upstream guide at https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide :) > > the patches need dep3 headers. > > Ok two small patches of me, I can fill the dep3 headers I guess, also with > next upload. > > > > > override_dh_auto_configure is a NOP. > > ACK, to be fixed with next upload. > > > > > Cheers, > > -- > > tobi >