On 08/02/16 21:57, Mattia Rizzolo 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?
Maybe the difference is that I build the software using:
time gbp buildpackage --git-pbuilder --git-ignore-new
or in a recent sid chroot:
time debuild -uc -us
I found another way to fix it, that seams to me to be more correct.
override_dh_clean:
dh_clean --exclude=config.sub --exclude=config.guess
>
>> 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.
Thank you.
>
>>>>> * 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 :)
>
Ok. I estimate this will take some days.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
