2011/6/11 Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk>:
> On 11-06-11 at 03:07pm, Dan S wrote:
>> It would be great if others can comment - anyone?
>
> I did a quick look (don't expect much involvement - am involved in too
> much at the moment already, and have some deadlines in RL too).

Thanks very much for these comments.

> This looks bad:
>
>> # The build system apparently can't handle this
>> CXXFLAGS =
>
> That and the DEB_SCONS_OPTIONS above it seems to indicate that it does
> not follow Debian Policy §4.9.1. Only a recommendation apparently, but I
> am uncertain if that only is _how_ to do it (i.e. DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS
> hinting) while the underlying mechanisms (e.g. ability to build without
> optimizations or without stripping binaries) is a must.

This is reasonable -- there's about to be a minor upstream release so
I'll try and patch upstream (even though it's a debianny issue), to
parse DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS.


> The -doc package should probably suggest the main package.  Similarly
> for the editor plugin packages (suggestions are too weak to cause a
> "domino effect" so are in my opinion best to declare explicitly).

OK


> Oh, and why do editor plugins recommend -doc package?  Seems they are
> tools to write code, not closely related to the documentation of the
> tool, so should perhaps be lowered to a suggestion.

I see your reasoning. Well, the documentation is not completely
independent - the editor-plugins include "jump to the help for this
command"-type features, and if the -doc is missing we get confused
users asking why the help-feature is broken. My inclination is for
Recommends here, for that reason - sounds OK?


> And I guess main packages not suggest/recommend -doc package too.

Sorry, what do you mean? You're saying perhaps that supercollider
should Suggest supercollider-doc? That sounds sensible.


> What is the most proper build-dependency for jack these days?  Here it
> is "libjack-dev (>= 0.100) | libjack-jackd2-dev", which as I believe is
> not wrong but seem to recall can be satisfied by a simpler dependency.

Ah right, the version 2 package is marked as "Provides: libjack-dev"
so we can simplify the dependency to "libjack-dev (>= 0.100)". I
remember there being a reason for keeping both - but it might have
been for earlier versions, before that particular "Provides" was in
place.


> The clean rule does not fully cleanup.  These files was left behind:
>
>  common/.sconf_temp/
>  common/.sconsign.dblite
>  common/config.log

I don't see this behaviour. (The clean rule contains an explicit "rm
-f common/.sconsign.dblite" so I'm not sure how it would happen.)
Could you give me the full commands to reproduce please?


> I will do an analysis on copyrights/licenses now - and hope not to find
> anything controversial there....

Thanks

Dan


> Regards,
>
>  - Jonas
>
> --
>  * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
>  * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
>
>  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
>
> _______________________________________________
> pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
> pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
>



_______________________________________________
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Reply via email to