[Stephane: I am moving the discussion to debian-mentors, because I got a reply from Mike Dupont there.]
Hi, Thanks for your comments, Mike and Stephane! I am sorry for the missing build-dependencies. I somehow expected it takes much longer until somebody would try my package and that I therefore would have some time for fixes. I believe the build dependencies are right now, at least, I get a clean build in pbuilder. There are still some known issues, see far below. Stéphane Glondu writes: It's good that you take care of that! I've put Pierre Letouzey, who expressed interest in having PG in Debian (and also a Coq developer), in CC. I hope you don't mind. No, I don't mind. A few remarks: - in debian/changelog, put #554263 on its own line, with an explicit statement that you are adopting the package Done. - in debian/changelog, there are two extraneous blank lines after the first entry; don't do that Done. - consider using debhelper 8 compat level Done. - consider using http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ for debian/copyright Done. (Nevertheless, I ask myself, why I got the compat level and the copyright format wrong when following precisely the guidelines in the new maintainers guide.) - what is the rationale of fix-package-name-in-install-path.patch? (sorry if it's a stupid question, shame on me if it's policy :) The package name is ``proofgeneral'' and therefore it should use subdirectories named ``proofgeneral''. The upstream installation procedure creates various subdirectories ``ProofGeneral''. - in general, there are too many patches, and they look written in a Debian-specific way. Please consider writing an upstreamable patch (it seems that you have commit access to PG) to make things more generic, so that there are less Debian-specific patches. Those are a pain to maintain in the long run Yes, I plan to incorporate some of the changes in the upstream release. But this would be step 2. I would first like to concentrate on getting an up-to-date version into Debian. - there is an extraneous TAGS in the upstream tarball Yes, that contains tags for the elisp code for developing Proof General. I don't think this should appear in a Debian package. - isn't emacs23-nox enough, as dependency of the binary package? I use now emacs23-nox | emacs23 | emacs23-lucid in the dependencies. - the compilation fails in a clean sid chroot with the following error: fixed with Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 8), texinfo, texlive-latex-base, texlive-generic-recommended, texi2html, emacs23-nox | emacs23 | emacs23-lucid Known issues: - upgrading from version 3.7 asks whether to preserve the changes in /etc/emacs/site-start.d/50proofgeneral.el even when nobody ever changed that. I believe the reason is that version 3.7 writes that file without registering it with dpkg. Bye, Hendrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/6xvcoj1u8t....@blau.inf.tu-dresden.de