2011/6/12 Dan S <danstowell+de...@gmail.com>: > 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.
My mistake, it's not upstream, it's in the rules file. >> 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 >> email@example.com >> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers >> > _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers