On Sep 2, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 12:58:57PM -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner
On Sep 2, 2010, at 3:36 AM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 01:07 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Looks pretty good to me, but I'm just learning myself :)
Thanks for having a look.
One thing I like to mention: The upstream sources come with a
based on a apparently old Makefile template for libdirs. It was
broken and created superfluous directories in debian/. I copied
current template, adapted it and applied it as a quilt patch. Is
the proper way to do it?
wondering about the strip stuff:
strip --remove-section=.comment --remove-section=.note --strip-
My guess is that this is needed in order to properly strip
the .pd_linux so binaries?
Yeah, dh_strip apparently does not consider .pd_linux files as
objects and also there is no way to force it by passing it file
I used the strip command from a mail by Felipe Sateler 
I was under the impression that dh would set the strip options in
the $(INSTALL_PROGRAM) for the Makefile, so that an explicit strip
wasn't necessary. Is that true? If so, I'll change up the pd
packages to use INSTALL_PROGRAM and INSTALL_DATA properly. I don't
know why I didn't do this to begin with.
No, debhelper does not interfere with $(INSTALL_PROGRAM). For
Debian packaging binaries should not be stripped during build - then
dh_strip should deal with stripping afterwards.
Problem is, the unusual filenames goes below the radar of dh_strip,
and (according to Felipe) dh_strip cannot be spoonfed additional
files to strip.
Makes sense. My question is: does it make sense to maintain a manual
strip target like this? Could we run into cross-arch issues with the
strip target, for example?
"We have nothing to fear from love and commitment." - New York Senator
Diane Savino, trying to convince the NY Senate to pass a gay marriage
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list