> W: libsuperlu5-dbg: empty-binary-package > Looks like debug symbols automatically went into libsuperlu5-dbgsym, > so libsuperlu5-dbg is redundant (i.e. rename in debian/control. Or > specify -dbg as the debug package in debian/rules, e.g. with dh_strip).
If it's build automatically, can't we just get rid of the -dbg entry in debian/control altogether? Cheers, Nico On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 1:54 PM Nico Schlömer <[email protected]> wrote: > > That's dodgy how upstream handled the non-free in MATLAB/time.m. All > they did was delete Mathwork's copyright statement. It's on their head. > > Indeed. All files that are listed as exceptions from the BSD license > (except mc64ad.*) in debian/copyright now have a BSD copyright header as > well, btw. It very much looks like they are dual-licensed now. Shall we > take this for granted? I guess we could remove some complication from > debian/copyright with this. > > Cheers, > Nico > > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 1:19 PM Drew Parsons <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Should be good to go. >> >> That's dodgy how upstream handled the non-free in MATLAB/time.m. All >> they did was delete Mathwork's copyright statement. It's on their head. >> >> Drew >> >> >> On Mon, 2016-05-23 at 10:15 +0000, Nico Schlömer wrote: >> > Drew, >> > >> > 5.2.1 came out yesterday with some of my PRs applied. Can you import >> > it please? I'd then go through the remaining issues. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Nico >> > >> > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 9:43 PM Drew Parsons <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > > On Fri, 2016-05-20 at 11:00 +0000, Nico Schlömer wrote: >> > > > > More important is that some dfsg files are still in the git >> > > tree. >> > > > > MATLAB/{spypart.m,time.m} and DOC/*ug.pdf. >> > > > >> > > > Aha yes. (Is the user guide really nonfree?) >> > > >> > > The argument is that the pdf is the useful bit, like a binary >> > > program. >> > > Just as we need the source for binary files, for the same reason >> > > we >> > > want the source (the latex files) for the pdf files. >> > > >> > > >> > > > Unfortunately, I have no experience with automatically creating >> > > dfsg >> > > > tarballs, and there's a fair chance I'll do it incorrectly. I'd >> > > > appreciate if someone could take over from here. >> > > >> > > I've tidied up the dfsg handling, listing the reject files in >> > > debian/copyright. >> > > >> > > The package builds fine (and petsc3.7 seems happy with it). >> > > >> > > The last step is to check lintian, >> > > lintian -i superlu_5.2.0+dfsg1-1_amd64.changes >> > > >> > > There's a handful of warnings, have a go at fixing them: >> > > >> > > W: superlu source: dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique >> > > (paragraph at line 109) >> > > There are 2 licence short-names "permissive". Give one a distinct >> > > short name from the other. permissive-colamd or something. >> > > >> > > >> > > W: superlu source: ancient-standards-version 3.9.5 (current is >> > > 3.9.8) >> > > >> > > >> > > W: libsuperlu5-dbg: empty-binary-package >> > > Looks like debug symbols automatically went into libsuperlu5- >> > > dbgsym, >> > > so libsuperlu5-dbg is redundant (i.e. rename in debian/control. >> > > Or >> > > specify -dbg as the debug package in debian/rules, e.g. with >> > > dh_strip). >> > > >> > > Thanks for your packaging efforts. >> > > Drew >> > > >> > > > Cheers, >> > > > Nico >> > > > >> > > > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 12:48 PM Drew Parsons <[email protected] >> > > g> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > On Fri, 2016-05-20 at 09:49 +0000, Nico Schlömer wrote: >> > > > > > I've pushed some more changes to [1] (including a patch) and >> > > it's >> > > > > now >> > > > > > compiling and installing alright. I guess a review would be >> > > in >> > > > > order. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Cheers, >> > > > > > Nico >> > > > > > >> > > > > > [1] alioth:/git/debian-science/packages/superlu.git >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> >
