Hi Steve,
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:53 AM, Steve M. Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 11:57:10AM +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >> Steve, >> >> I remove the -Werror from the debian/rules file, as it currently >> breaks cmake configuration step. See my post: >> >> http://www.cmake.org/pipermail/cmake/2008-December/025839.html >> >> I am not sure if this breaks some kind of policy. > > Nope. There's no policy (that I know of) stating that you have to be > warning-free or use -Werror. > > .. but it's obviously a good idea to be warning-free ... > > You cmake post makes it sound like it tripped up a cmake test. I > wonder if there's a way to have the configuration-type checks like > this run with blank CFLAGS and use -Werror for the main build. Because the debian package only target debian system and thus gcc compiler. I think you can follow the trick I provided in the cmake bug tracker: http://cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=8246 However this is not very smart to deactivate builtins for the entire project. The ideal solution would be to patch cmake to pass -fno-builtins *only* when doing the checkfunctions exists. [I wish I knew how autoconf people handled this case]. Does anyone knows if AC_CHECK_FUNC handle this particular case ? > It's great that you're taking an interest in packaging GDCM. I am trying to learn from this particular package. Hopefully I'll be able to provide the following: pvrg, jpegls, dicom3tools, dcmtk-snapshot once I get more confident with the process. > I'm a little confused by a couple of recent changelog entries, > however. For instance, they start with "Non-maintainer upload", > but: > 1. I thought you were a maintainer (?), and > 2. as far as I can tell, gdcm has never been uploaded to Debian. Ooops. That's a mistake, I was using dch -i as I read on some random website and I guess it adds unwanted lines... Please revert, thanks. > In addition, this package should be versioned as a regular (not > "native") package, which means append a "-rel" to the version; > i.e. use "2.0.10-1" rather than "2.0.10". cool, thanks ! > By the way, I just realized I had done a bit of work on 2.0.10 but not > yet committed it. I'm doing so now, tweaking the 2.0.10-1 changelog > entry at the same time. Fantastic ! Thanks, -- Mathieu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
