On 07/30/2011 01:28 PM, Michael Tautschnig wrote: > Hi Michael, > > Thanks a lot for the quick response! > > [...] >>> - auxiliary/converter is shipped as binary, although converter.cpp probably >>> is >>> its source!? >> >> Yes. What do you propose? Should I remove auxiliary/converter from the >> source package? If so, how? Via a patch in debian/patches? >> >>> - all of viennacl/ could probably be generated at build time, using the >>> above >>> converter. >> >> Would you prefer it if it was done that way? I can give it a try. >> >>> - doxygen could easily be run at build time. >> >> Yes, but the output is already contained in the original tar-ball. What >> should I do with it? >> > [...] > > I think for all of the above you should speak to upstream about having them > removed. I don't quite know about their responsiveness (or willingness to do > so), hence for the moment you might want to start out with a repacked tar > ball, > adding +dfsg to the package version (note: you will also need to change the > watch file in this case: add a line opts=dversionmangle=s/\+dfsg//), and > ideally > a get-orig-source target in debian/rules. Thereby you'd end up with a much > much > cleaner source package, which really is the *source*, and not some > intermediate > state. It would be nice if upstream would follow that reasoning... > > Please let me know if you need any further information on this! > > Best, > Michael >
I will contact upstream about this. I fear they will be reluctant to remove the auxiliary/convert binary, because that one links against a boost library, and they might be reluctant to require their users to install boost as a pure build-dependency. I'll give it a try nonetheless. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
