Bug#869926: RFS: oprofile/1.2.0-1 [ITP]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 23:59:27 +0500 Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 02:14:17PM -0300, Breno Leitao wrote: > > Thanks Roberto. > > > > wRar, do you still any concern about this package? > Nope, uploaded. Thank you Roberto. Thanks for uploading the package! I

Bug#869926: RFS: oprofile/1.2.0-1 [ITP]

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017 20:20:03 -0300 Roberto Oliveira > > In that case please override this warning and write a comment describing > > the reason. > Fixed. > > > libopagent1 should be Section: libs. > Fixed. Thanks Roberto. wRar, do you still any concern about this package?

Bug#869926: RFS: oprofile/1.2.0-1 [ITP]

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017 00:00:30 +0500 Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 03:48:10PM -0300, Roberto Oliveira wrote: > > > W: oprofile-jit: package-has-unnecessary-activation-of-ldconfig-trigger > > oprofile-jit installs a file under /etc/ld.so.conf.d/ that allows > >

Bug#869926: RFS: oprofile/1.2.0-1 [ITP]

On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 03:48:10PM -0300, Roberto Oliveira wrote: > > W: oprofile-jit: package-has-unnecessary-activation-of-ldconfig-trigger > oprofile-jit installs a file under /etc/ld.so.conf.d/ that allows > oprofile finds the jvmti_oprofile when profiling Jited codes. > So I think we need to

Bug#869926: RFS: oprofile/1.2.0-1 [ITP]

Hi Andrey, On Thu, 7 Sep 2017 22:33:48 +0500 Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > dpkg-gencontrol: warning: Depends field of package libopagent-dev: unknown > substitution variable ${shlibs:Depends} Fixed. > I: oprofile source: duplicate-short-description libopagent1 libopagent-dev

Bug#869926: RFS: oprofile/1.2.0-1 [ITP]

dpkg-gencontrol: warning: Depends field of package libopagent-dev: unknown substitution variable ${shlibs:Depends} I: oprofile source: duplicate-short-description libopagent1 libopagent-dev W: oprofile-jit: package-has-unnecessary-activation-of-ldconfig-trigger W: libopagent-dev:

Bug#869926: RFS: oprofile/1.2.0-1 [ITP]

Hi Andrey, On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 22:44:24 +0500 Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > libopagent.so should be in -dev. Fixed. > I think /etc/ld.so.conf.d/oprofile-jit.conf should be in oprofile-jit. Fixed. > I think you had a .symbols file for libopagent1, you should use it again. Fixed.

Bug#869926: RFS: oprofile/1.2.0-1 [ITP]

libopagent.so should be in -dev. I think /etc/ld.so.conf.d/oprofile-jit.conf should be in oprofile-jit. I think you had a .symbols file for libopagent1, you should use it again. You should use debian/tmp instead of . in find commands in d/rules. Your .html files are size 0, because you haven't

Bug#869926: RFS: oprofile/1.2.0-1 [ITP]

Hi Andrey, I found something wrong in the last version I sent, so I just sent a new version. So in case you already did a "dget -x", please, do it again. Regards, Roberto Oliveira.

Bug#869926: RFS: oprofile/1.2.0-1 [ITP]

Hi Andrey, On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 22:52:12 +0500 Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > Please upgrade to the current Standards-Version. Fixed. > Why do you use "rm `find . -name "*.la"`" instead of "find . -name "*.la" > -delete"? Fixed > Why do you ship static versions of the plugins?

Bug#869926: RFS: oprofile/1.2.0-1 [ITP]

Please upgrade to the current Standards-Version. Why do you use "rm `find . -name "*.la"`" instead of "find . -name "*.la" -delete"? Why do you ship static versions of the plugins? README_PACKAGERS says "It is recommended to run ldconfig in %post and %postun to add/remove the /oprofile path from

Bug#869926: RFS: oprofile/1.2.0-1 [ITP]

Hi Andrey, On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 23:52:48 +0500 Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 04:45:56PM -0300, Roberto Oliveira wrote: > > > I still see a lot of old junk in debian/control: > > > - did you write that Build-Depends? if no, please write them from scratch, > >

Bug#869926: RFS: oprofile/1.2.0-1 [ITP]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 04:45:56PM -0300, Roberto Oliveira wrote: > > I still see a lot of old junk in debian/control: > > - did you write that Build-Depends? if no, please write them from scratch, > > making sure they are complete and necessary. > I Checked all the dependencies and now just the

Bug#869926: RFS: oprofile/1.2.0-1 [ITP]

Hi Andrey, I think I did all the changes you suggested, can you take a look on it again, please? > Control: tags -1 + moreinfo > > I still see a lot of old junk in debian/control: > - did you write that Build-Depends? if no, please write them from scratch, > making sure they are complete and

Bug#869926: RFS: oprofile/1.2.0-1 [ITP]

Control: tags -1 + moreinfo I still see a lot of old junk in debian/control: - did you write that Build-Depends? if no, please write them from scratch, making sure they are complete and necessary. - why Conflicts: oprofile-modules*? There are no such packages in last releases. - Replaces:

Bug#869926: RFS: oprofile/1.2.0-1 [ITP]

Thanks for reviewing it Andrey! I tried to apply your suggestions in the package and also made some other improvements. Hope it looks better now.

Bug#869926: RFS: oprofile/1.2.0-1 [ITP]

Why is this not using dh(1)? It's also hardcoding /usr/lib and not the multiarch path in d/rules. Why is changelog-move-to-git-log.patch needed? There are a lot of strange and ancient things kept from the previous Debian package, yet d/changelog doesn't have the old entries. OTOH d/copyright

Bug#869926: RFS: oprofile/1.2.0-1 [ITP]

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "oprofile" Package name: oprofile Version : 1.2.0-1 URL : http://oprofile.sourceforge.net/ License : GPL2 Section : devel It builds those binary