On 8 February 2016 21:57:11 GMT+00:00, Mattia Rizzolo <[email protected]> wrote: >On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 09:29:55PM +0000, Jose M Calhariz wrote: >> Today I didn't review all yours remarks. But in the spirit of >release >> early and release often here goes my today effort. > >yay, I definitely approve this ;) >I hadn't gone deeper, just commented on your last changes here. > >> On 07/02/16 22:01, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: >> > On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 08:40:10PM +0000, Jose M Calhariz wrote: >> >> On 06/02/16 23:41, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: >> >>> Umh, couldn't you turn d/rules to use the dh sequencer? >> >> I don't know enough and lintian show many problems with upstream >d/rules. >> > well, let's fix them, then :) >> > Attached there is a d/rules using short dh, may you try it and bend >it >> > better to the needs of this package? >> >> I managed to make it compile, but for a reason I don't know I needed >to >> add the following lines: >> >> override_dh_auto_configure: >> cp /usr/share/misc/config.guess . >> cp /usr/share/misc/config.sub . >> dh_auto_configure --parallel > >that's so weird. > >even more in light of the new dh_update_autotools_config which is run >automatically by dh >= 9.20160114 and do exactly that. >Are you testing your package in an update sid chroot?
I am using cowbuilder and I have read the docs. Some mistake from my side certainly. > >> I have tried many ideas but was only this way that it build > >also, it did build here without them. > >> >>> * d/copyright: consider write a copyright-format 1.0 one? at a >first >> >>> sight doesn't look too much work. >> >> Done >> > though it's not compliant, and indeed lintian is noisy on it, >please try >> > to figure out what's wrong with it and fix it. >> > I believe blindly following lintian here is enough, though it would >be >> > nice if you could understand what's the problem by yourself :) >> >> I fix it, but I don't understand why :-) > >ok, I'm going to assume you read all of >https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ and >somehow did not understand it. > >DEP-5 copyright is RFC 822-compliant file where there are basically 3 >types of paragraphs: > * the header paragraph => you know it > * the file paragraphs > * the stand alone license paragraphs > >the file paragraph is composed by at least > * Files: > * Copyright: > * License: > >in your earlier attempt at it you put a blank line between Copyright >and >License, and de-facto created a separated pargraph, totally >disconnected >from the previous one. That one by itself was a compliant stand alone >license paragraph, but > 1) it was repeated by another one later > 2) it was not refereced by a License: line from a file paragraph. > > >I hope I made the thing at least clearer. > >> >>> * please try to get a reproducible buildable package, from what I >see it >> >>> wouldn't be difficult at all. > >♥ THANK YOU! :D > >> >>> there are 57 open bugs, are you telling me none of them get >closed by >> >>> this upload? :\ > >ok, I saw you added some closes: to the bug, and added a line to the >changelog saying that you closed those bugs. meh. >you should explicitly list what you are closing, briefly; probably the >best way is in a indented list, something like > * New upstream version. > + Fix blabla due to fofo. Closes: #xxxxx > + Fix ciaciaaicegow. Closes: #yyyyy >And adding to the changelog a sentence like "I closed bugs" is totally >useless, just remove it :) -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
