RFS: admesh (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.95-8 of my package admesh. It builds these binary packages: admesh - a tool for processing triangulated solid meshes The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 436373, 576168, 597159 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/admesh - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/admesh/admesh_0.95-8.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Anton Gladky -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktimavvqxrawsx3tgjjiexfg_-mvzdq8-_-49q...@mail.gmail.com
Re: libfoo.so.X symlink not created at build time
* Muammar El Khatib muammarelkha...@gmail.com [110104 22:43]: Hi Bernhard, On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 05:36:37PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote: * Muammar El Khatib muammarelkha...@gmail.com [110104 16:52]: I'm maintaining a library which new upstream version is creating at build time *.la, *.so (development symlink), and the library itself with the form libfoo-x.y.z.so but not their symlinks that match their SONAME (I was expecting something like libfoo.so.X). Please take a look what their actual SONAME is (using readelf -d). Here I am pasting an example: $ readelf -d libCEGUIBase-0.7.5.so [...] 0x000e (SONAME) Library soname: [libCEGUIBase-0.7.5.so] [...] While the SONAME usually is something like libfoo.so.X, it might also be anything else (and the dynamic linker will that look for that file at runtime). If the SONAME is not libfoo.so.X there is no need to have a symlink of that name. I think I have understood you. So, in this case I am showing I don't need the symlinks of type libfoo.so.X because the SONAME is itself the libfoo-x.y.z.so. yes. If you have something like libfoo-X.so there, then this is not a development symlink, but the SONAME symlink. (so if any doc says .so.X they mean -X.so in that case and if they say .so they mean the real .so file and not the -X.so). Then, I should provide in the library package _only_ the lib*-x.y.z.so files, and obviously the *.la and *.so development symlinks into -dev package. Please, correct me if I am wrong. yes. Also note that your soname now includes the whole 0.7.5 part, so that this number should most likely be part of the library package *name*. (as the -1 seem to have been before). Now, packages which depends on this library to build are going to fail with this change. Things that build-depend on this package should most likely still be build-able with the -dev package installed. (Unless that version changes something else in comparison to packages already in the archive). But it is a soname change. That is why you have to change the package name, so that the old working library package (containing libCEGUIBASE.so.1 from version 0.6.2) is not removed if some package still depends on it. Packages build with the new -dev package will then have a dependency on the new package name with 0.7.5 in it. It can be said that a library transition has to be done. I'll rebuild packages gotten by executing apt-cache rdepends, and contact maintainers. If the API did not change, then those packages might only need an binNMU. Also note that as the version in the soname seems to be the whole version of the library (at least I guess so, as it is as 0.7.5 seems quite similar to the package upstream version of 0.6.2 in sid), every future minor upstream release will most likely change the soname and need a full library transition cycle (and perhaps waiting for NEW and so on). In other words: Unless you have some LART big enough to get upstream to switch back to stable ABIs, think twice if you want to keep maintaining this library or if simply droping it from Debian might be the better solution. I fear it might be everything but pleasent to deal with this all the time. If you keep maintaining it, I'd also suggest asking the release team for advice (as they will have to deal with those transitions). Ideally after squeeze release, though. Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110105104140.ga7...@pcpool00.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de
Re: RFS: admesh (updated package)
Hi, Anton Gladky gladky.an...@gmail.com writes: I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.95-8 of my package admesh. Please write informative changelog entries when closing bugs. Just Closes: #nn does not say much. You might want to add a small informative header to the patch as well (maybe using the proposed DEP-3 format). What does debian/directory is deleted from orig.tar.gz mean? You cannot change the .orig.tar.gz without changing the upstream version. The license used upstream seems to be GPL-2 or later. Please mention this in debian/copyright. For some files (getopt*) the FSF has the copyright. (There is also the proposed DEP-5 format for d/copyright, of course you are also free not to use it.) Most people prefer to license the Debian packaging under the same terms as the upstream source, so that for example patches can be reused by upstream as well. The Sample debian/rules header is not true: It's not a sample. There are two hashbang lines (#!/usr/bin/make). Passing -a to the dh_* tools should not be necessary. The newlines near the end should be removed. Is the build-dependency on autotools-dev used anywhere? Regards, Ansgar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87y66zedm4@marvin.43-1.org
Re: RFS: admesh (updated package)
Thanks, Ansgar, for the package review. I have fixed the package according to your suggestions and would be glad if you have a look at them. Thanks Anton On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Ansgar Burchardt ans...@43-1.org wrote: Hi, Anton Gladky gladky.an...@gmail.com writes: I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.95-8 of my package admesh. Please write informative changelog entries when closing bugs. Just Closes: #nn does not say much. You might want to add a small informative header to the patch as well (maybe using the proposed DEP-3 format). What does debian/directory is deleted from orig.tar.gz mean? You cannot change the .orig.tar.gz without changing the upstream version. The license used upstream seems to be GPL-2 or later. Please mention this in debian/copyright. For some files (getopt*) the FSF has the copyright. (There is also the proposed DEP-5 format for d/copyright, of course you are also free not to use it.) Most people prefer to license the Debian packaging under the same terms as the upstream source, so that for example patches can be reused by upstream as well. The Sample debian/rules header is not true: It's not a sample. There are two hashbang lines (#!/usr/bin/make). Passing -a to the dh_* tools should not be necessary. The newlines near the end should be removed. Is the build-dependency on autotools-dev used anywhere? Regards, Ansgar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87y66zedm4@marvin.43-1.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktikzndrxnpzmkhpxsbuqh_4tp=hfs-xxbjfj6...@mail.gmail.com
RFS: c2html (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.9.6-4 of my package c2html. It builds these binary packages: c2html - Highlight C sources for WWW presentation The upload would fix these bugs: 595541 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/c2html - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/c2html/c2html_0.9.6-4.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards fulapol Please CC me, i'm not in the list
RFS: googlizer (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.3-4 of my package googlizer. It builds these binary packages: googlizer - utility to search Google via your GNOME menu/panel The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 554674 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/googlizer - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/googlizer/googlizer_0.3-4.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards fulapol Please CC me, I'm not in the list.
