Re: xkb-data: Changes to 'debian-unstable'

2009-09-03 Thread Julien Cristau
On Thu, Sep  3, 2009 at 01:50:05 +, David Nusinow wrote:

 diff --git a/debian/compat b/debian/compat
 index 7ed6ff8..7f8f011 100644
 --- a/debian/compat
 +++ b/debian/compat
 @@ -1 +1 @@
 -5
 +7
 diff --git a/debian/rules b/debian/rules
 index d237d45..7a61b23 100755
 --- a/debian/rules
 +++ b/debian/rules
 @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ endif
  xkb_base := /usr/share/X11/xkb
  
  configure: $(STAMP_DIR)/patch
 + dh_prep
   intltoolize -c -f
   autoreconf -vfi
  
I don't think dh_prep belongs here.  AFAIK it belongs in the install
target.

Also, is there any particular reason for bumping the debhelper compat
level?  I've been holding off on moving to something  5 unless I was
using the new dh stuff, so far.

Cheers,
Julien

Cheers,
Julien


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-x-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Re: xkb-data: Changes to 'debian-unstable'

2009-09-03 Thread David Nusinow

Julien Cristau wrote:

On Thu, Sep  3, 2009 at 01:50:05 +, David Nusinow wrote:

  

diff --git a/debian/compat b/debian/compat
index 7ed6ff8..7f8f011 100644
--- a/debian/compat
+++ b/debian/compat
@@ -1 +1 @@
-5
+7
diff --git a/debian/rules b/debian/rules
index d237d45..7a61b23 100755
--- a/debian/rules
+++ b/debian/rules
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ endif
 xkb_base := /usr/share/X11/xkb
 
 configure: $(STAMP_DIR)/patch

+   dh_prep
intltoolize -c -f
autoreconf -vfi
 


I don't think dh_prep belongs here.  AFAIK it belongs in the install
target.
  

Pasted from the dh_prep manpage:

DESCRIPTION
  dh_prep is a debhelper program that performs some file cleanups in
  preparation for building a package. (This is what dh_clean -k used to
  do.)  It removes the package build directories, debian/tmp, and some
  temp files that are generated during the build. Putting this at the
  start of the build process makes the build process idempotent.


So the documentation talks about it as being for cleanups prior to 
building the package. Is there a reason this should go in the install 
target? It's entirely possible that there's some interaction between the 
Makefile targets that I'm missing that makes it optimal to add to the 
install target as well.



Also, is there any particular reason for bumping the debhelper compat
level?  I've been holding off on moving to something  5 unless I was
using the new dh stuff, so far.
  


There's no major need, but I'd rather stay on top of it so we don't have 
to worry about updating it later when v5 becomes deprecated. Since no 
one seems to be particularly interested in backporting these X packages 
to the current stable it shouldn't cause any real problems. It's not a 
big deal though and if you'd rather stay at v5 and above (v4 is 
currently deprecated) I'm fine with that.


- David Nusinow


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-x-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Re: xkb-data: Changes to 'debian-unstable'

2009-09-03 Thread Julien Cristau
Hi David,

On Thu, Sep  3, 2009 at 07:50:03 -0400, David Nusinow wrote:

 Pasted from the dh_prep manpage:
 
 DESCRIPTION
   dh_prep is a debhelper program that performs some file cleanups in
   preparation for building a package. (This is what dh_clean -k used to
   do.)  It removes the package build directories, debian/tmp, and some
   temp files that are generated during the build. Putting this at the
   start of the build process makes the build process idempotent.
 
 
 So the documentation talks about it as being for cleanups prior to
 building the package. Is there a reason this should go in the
 install target? It's entirely possible that there's some interaction
 between the Makefile targets that I'm missing that makes it optimal
 to add to the install target as well.
 
Building the package here means building the debs, aiui.  dh_prep
removes the debian/tmp and debian/$package directories, which are
created by make install and dh_install, so you'd call it right before
make install to remove any files remaining in case of calling
'debian/rules binary' twice in a row, without 'debian/rules clean' in
between.

 Also, is there any particular reason for bumping the debhelper compat
 level?  I've been holding off on moving to something  5 unless I was
 using the new dh stuff, so far.
 
 There's no major need, but I'd rather stay on top of it so we don't
 have to worry about updating it later when v5 becomes deprecated.
 Since no one seems to be particularly interested in backporting
 these X packages to the current stable it shouldn't cause any real
 problems. It's not a big deal though and if you'd rather stay at v5
 and above (v4 is currently deprecated) I'm fine with that.
 
Agreed that it's not a big deal, lenny has debhelper 7.0.15 anyway.  I'm
actually interested in the new options in debhelper 7.3 which could make
our rules files way simpler.  I've played with it a bit a while ago, see
http://git.debian.org/?p=users/jcristau/libx11.git;a=commitdiff;h=ca0bf64774deaa904570413062d8a4345f22ceda
for example (comments welcome, btw).

Cheers,
Julien


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-x-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Re: xkb-data: Changes to 'debian-unstable'

2009-09-03 Thread David Nusinow

Julien Cristau wrote:

Hi David,

On Thu, Sep  3, 2009 at 07:50:03 -0400, David Nusinow wrote:

  

Pasted from the dh_prep manpage:

DESCRIPTION
  dh_prep is a debhelper program that performs some file cleanups in
  preparation for building a package. (This is what dh_clean -k used to
  do.)  It removes the package build directories, debian/tmp, and some
  temp files that are generated during the build. Putting this at the
  start of the build process makes the build process idempotent.


So the documentation talks about it as being for cleanups prior to
building the package. Is there a reason this should go in the
install target? It's entirely possible that there's some interaction
between the Makefile targets that I'm missing that makes it optimal
to add to the install target as well.



Building the package here means building the debs, aiui.  dh_prep
removes the debian/tmp and debian/$package directories, which are
created by make install and dh_install, so you'd call it right before
make install to remove any files remaining in case of calling
'debian/rules binary' twice in a row, without 'debian/rules clean' in
between.
  


That's reasonable, but my worry with that is that you're deleting part 
of the build tree mid-build, which I imagine could cause some issues in 
theory. I'm fine with reverting the change and just replacing dh_clean 
-k with dh_prep. I'll also file a bug against debhelper asking for 
clarification and a better explanation in the docs. I won't be able to 
do this until I get home after work this evening though.



Also, is there any particular reason for bumping the debhelper compat
level?  I've been holding off on moving to something  5 unless I was
using the new dh stuff, so far.
  

There's no major need, but I'd rather stay on top of it so we don't
have to worry about updating it later when v5 becomes deprecated.
Since no one seems to be particularly interested in backporting
these X packages to the current stable it shouldn't cause any real
problems. It's not a big deal though and if you'd rather stay at v5
and above (v4 is currently deprecated) I'm fine with that.



Agreed that it's not a big deal, lenny has debhelper 7.0.15 anyway.  I'm
actually interested in the new options in debhelper 7.3 which could make
our rules files way simpler.  I've played with it a bit a while ago, see
http://git.debian.org/?p=users/jcristau/libx11.git;a=commitdiff;h=ca0bf64774deaa904570413062d8a4345f22ceda
for example (comments welcome, btw).
  


I've been putting off switching to dh because it's been a low priority, 
and I worry about the cdbs-ness of the thing. It looks like dh does 
create a logfile as it strings together the dh_* commands though, which 
would hopefully make it less opaque. The shortened rules file is 
appealing though, especially for some of the simpler packages like the 
protocol headers. To give a full critique I'll have to spend some time 
learning dh, which I'll do if this is something you want to push forward on.


- David Nusinow


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-x-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org