Re: Looking for help towards my first Debian package (ITP#962603)
On 2020-06-11 15:35 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > Looks like what you haven't isn't correct, it should be libzmat1 > instead of libzmat in the control file, since the library package name > is supposed to be based on the SONAME of the library. Are you sure you are not being excessively categorical here? libzmat1 is preferred, but libzmat is not 'wrong'. (Hmm, checks policy - OK, maybe it is wrong :-) The point is that when the SONAME is included in the package name then packages depending on this library can transition to the new libzmat2 one by one, as they are built after the SONAME=2 version of zmat is uploaded one day. Older packages built earlier which depend on libzmat (SO=1) and depend on libzmat1 package carry on working and libzmat1 package stays on the system until nothing depends on it any more because the depending packages have all been upgraded to depend on libzmat2. If you just have 'libzmat' then this process is not possible and when you upload a new libzmat (SO=2) one day all the packages that depend on it have to be rebuilt against the new version, and only when all are done can the packages transition into testing. In practice this can cause huge delays, so we developed the practice of putting SONNAMES into package names to make the whole thing work rather better. So if for some reason it is not safe to have two versions of the library simultaneously installed then an unversioned library package (libzmat) makes sense but that's rare. So Bouyang's "Either one is okay in this case." is misleading. The -dev package should usually not contain the SONAME in the package name - that's only needed when you need people to be able to link explicitly against libzcat1 or libzcat2. (makes sense for something like a big GUI toolkit: QT4 and QT5, but not a leaf compression library) Library naming conventions are subtle and the reasons for _why_ one might want to do one thing or another are not obvious. Details are given in policy: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html Wookey -- Principal hats: Linaro, Debian, Wookware, ARM http://wookware.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Looking for help towards my first Debian package (ITP#962603)
On Thu, 2020-06-11 at 02:53 -0400, Qianqian Fang wrote: > that's possible. however, some of the file release systems, such as > MATLAB File Exchange, only links to the github generated > master.zip/release packages. if I remove the mex files from my github > folder, users will not be able to run unless they know how to > recompile. I think I would just change the MATLAB download link to the github releases page, which then links to source/binaries for each release. > I did have a separate github repo for binaries, but it is quite > painful to sync and promote if I have two URLs. That doesn't seem like the correct solution to me, one should never keep generated nor bundled files in git. > for now, I will simply create a source-only orig.tar.gz file when I > upload my package again. Thanks. > I agree that library bundling is a bad thing only if such library is > widely available and frequently updated such as on Linux, but when > you aim to support users cross platforms (especially those using > windows), counting on users to install all dependencies and > successful compile your code is simply difficult. I suggest that users should be provided with pre-compiled binaries instead of source. On platforms that don't have sane dependency systems, you would obviously need to provide copies of all dependencies, but that should happen in the binary packages for those platforms, not in the source code repository. > Bundling lightweight dependencies (with a compatible license of > course) could potentially save lots of time and trouble. Pre-compiled binaries saves even more time. > Bundling also avoids a lot of instability issues when a library > decides to make a non-backward-compatible interface changes (which > happens quite often among linux libraries). Pre-compiled binaries avoids this too. For compiling from source you can add version constraints in most build systems, but eventually you just need to support newer the interface versions. > anyhow, my opinion is that while admitting bundling is not a best > practice, it is not something that should be forbidden either. If I > can't bundle lz4 source codes (4 files), then I will have to change > my upstream makefile and create a new release. For a library like lz4, with a small record of security issues, I don't think it is appropriate to statically link it nor embed copies of it unless of course the platform the binaries are for doesn't have a sane dependency system. For those platforms you need to ensure your binaries use the newest version of the library with no security bugs. If you are not embedding the library in your source code, a simple rebuild updates the binaries for those platforms but if you are embedding then you need to manually update the embedded version before you can rebuild and then release, so embedding libraries in your source is less efficient. https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/source-package/lz4 > the repo says public, can you try this link again? > > https://salsa.debian.org/fangq/libzmat I made a typo on your username, sorry. Looks like what you haven't isn't correct, it should be libzmat1 instead of libzmat in the control file, since the library package name is supposed to be based on the SONAME of the library. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Looking for help towards my first Debian package (ITP#962603)
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 02:53:47AM -0400, Qianqian Fang wrote: > > when dh builds the library, the linking command of the libzmat.so file did > include the -lz flag (and the linking was successful) > > gcc -shared -Wl,-soname,libzmat.so.1 -lz -o ../lib/libzmat.so zmatlib.o With --as-needed enabled by default, -l arguments should come after the .o files that require them. As you construct the link command manually, you need to distinguish between flags, that usually come before sources, and libs, that should come after them, and split your ARFLAGS accordingly. > where does "library dependency" get specified in the package, if not > Depends? The shared library dependencies of the binary files are specified in the ELF headers. They are not the same as Debian package dependencies. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Looking for help towards my first Debian package (ITP#962603)
On 6/11/20 2:05 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
The Depends in debian/control are not the same as the dependencies of
the library file itself (although usually the library dependencies are
automatically translated to Depends using ${shlibs:Depends}). When
linking the library you need to link against libz.so, typically you
would do that like this:
gcc -o foo foo.o bar.o baz.o -lz
when dh builds the library, the linking command of the libzmat.so file
did include the -lz flag (and the linking was successful)
gcc -shared -Wl,-soname,libzmat.so.1 -lz -o ../lib/libzmat.so zmatlib.o
where does "library dependency" get specified in the package, if not
Depends?
If you have users who aren't able to do compilation, you can provide
the precompiled library and other files in a separate tarball or zip.
If you are using github, you can attach those to your release tags.
that's possible. however, some of the file release systems, such as
MATLAB File Exchange
says public, can you
try this link again?
https://salsa.debian.org/fangq/libzmat
thanks
Re: Looking for help towards my first Debian package (ITP#962603)
On Thu, 2020-06-11 at 01:52 -0400, Qianqian Fang wrote:
> I listed zlib1g in the Depends section, isn't it the provider of libz.so?
The Depends in debian/control are not the same as the dependencies of
the library file itself (although usually the library dependencies are
automatically translated to Depends using ${shlibs:Depends}). When
linking the library you need to link against libz.so, typically you
would do that like this:
gcc -o foo foo.o bar.o baz.o -lz
> I am the upstream author of this toolbox. I included those precompiled
> mex files because most of my users do not have a dev environment to compile.
If you have users who aren't able to do compilation, you can provide
the precompiled library and other files in a separate tarball or zip.
If you are using github, you can attach those to your release tags.
Since you are upstream, check out our guide for upstreams:
https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide
> I will remove them from the orig tarball then.
Thanks.
> Boyuan in an earlier message suggested to use libzmat instead of
> libzmat1. I've changed my control files on salsa
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/fangq/libzmat
This repository doesn't appear to be public, but libzmat is definitely
the wrong name for the binary package name, it should be libzmat1. It
is an acceptable source package name, but if you change the Debian
source package name you should probably also change the upstream name.
Which upstream name you want is dependent on what you intend to put
into the repository, is it just the library (use libzmat) or also other
things that use the library (use zmat). You could also put those other
things in a separate upstream repository and source package.
> moving forward, to make these suggested changes, do I need to
> reupload the package to mentors?
Yes.
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Looking for help towards my first Debian package (ITP#962603)
On 6/11/20 12:52 AM, Paul Wise wrote: On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 8:25 PM Qianqian Fang wrote: dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol deflateBound used by debian/libzmat1/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libzmat.so.1 found in none of the libraries although, I've already added zlib1g-dev to Build-Depends and zlib1g to the Depends fields, I am wondering what else do I need to add. The libzmat1.so.1 library needs to link against libz.so too. Probably this needs to be fixed upstream. hi Paul, I listed *zlib1g* in the Depends section, isn't it the provider of libz.so? https://packages.debian.org/buster/amd64/zlib1g/filelist These precompiled binaries should be removed from the upstream source repository and tarballs and always built from source at build time. If upstream refuses to do that, you should remove them from the orig.tar.gz before uploading your package. Using the Files-Excluded feature of uscan is a reasonable way to achieve that. I am the upstream author of this toolbox. I included those precompiled mex files because most of my users do not have a dev environment to compile. I will remove them from the orig tarball then. The source package name should be the same as the upstream source repository name (so zmat) and the binary package name should be named after the SONAME of the library binary (so libzmat1). Boyuan in an earlier message suggested to use libzmat instead of libzmat1. I've changed my control files on salsa https://salsa.debian.org/fangq/libzmat moving forward, to make these suggested changes, do I need to reupload the package to mentors? thanks Qianqian
Re: Looking for help towards my first Debian package (ITP#962603)
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 8:25 PM Qianqian Fang wrote: > dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol deflateBound used by > debian/libzmat1/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libzmat.so.1 found in none of the > libraries > > although, I've already added zlib1g-dev to Build-Depends and zlib1g to the > Depends fields, I am wondering what else do I need to add. The libzmat1.so.1 library needs to link against libz.so too. Probably this needs to be fixed upstream. > these two folders (private/octave) are precompiled binary (mex) files using > the same source codes. These precompiled binaries should be removed from the upstream source repository and tarballs and always built from source at build time. If upstream refuses to do that, you should remove them from the orig.tar.gz before uploading your package. Using the Files-Excluded feature of uscan is a reasonable way to achieve that. > 4. naming convention: did I do this correctly? can I use libzmat or zmat as > the main package name? The source package name should be the same as the upstream source repository name (so zmat) and the binary package name should be named after the SONAME of the library binary (so libzmat1). -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Looking for help towards my first Debian package (ITP#962603)
hi there, I am learning my way towards creating my first Debian package. The specific package I am working on right now is in this ITP bug https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=962603 at this point, I've uploaded a set of packaging files to salsa https://salsa.debian.org/fangq/libzmat I'd like to have someone take a look, and help me figure out some of the remaining issues. Specifically, here are the things I want to fix 1. one of the 3 subpackages is an Octave toolbox (as a mex file). Although the binary was compiled during the packaging process, I wasn't able to find a template to assemble the octave package. can someone point to me if there is a template (for a similar mex-based toolbox) for octave? 2. when running debuild, I got the below warning *dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol deflateBound used by debian/libzmat1/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libzmat.so.1 found in none of the libraries* although, I've already added zlib1g-dev to Build-Depends and zlib1g to the Depends fields, I am wondering what else do I need to add. 3. I have two errors from lintian: *E: zmat source: source-is-missing private/zipmat.mexa64** **E: zmat source: source-is-missing octave/linux64/zipmat.mex* these two folders (private/octave) are precompiled binary (mex) files using the same source codes. They are not installed anyways, I am wondering if I can set a flag to skip these files (or run a pre-build script to remove them?) 4. naming convention: did I do this correctly? can I use libzmat or zmat as the main package name? if you can provide additional feedback on this package, I am very much appreciated. thanks Qianqian
Re: my first debian package
Hi!, Congrats on your first package and welcome to Debian! https://mentors.debian.net/package/pyfltk > > If you see on QA Information you will see that there are some litian problems, please check if that problems exist on testing too and try to solve it. Do you have salsa user? it would great if you have package on salsa. Then, you have to send a mail to mentors.d.o following this instructions: https://mentors.debian.net/sponsors/rfs-howto Regards! -- Arias Emmanuel http://eamanu.com Github/Gitlab; @eamanu Debian: @eamanu-guest
Re: my first debian package
Looking for a sponsor. https://mentors.debian.net/package/pyfltk
Re: my first debian package
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 6:13 PM Paul Wise wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 7:58 AM Robert Arkiletian wrote: > > > Hurray! I built it. > > Congrats! Please also check the package with lintian. > Will do.
Re: my first debian package
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 7:58 AM Robert Arkiletian wrote: > Hurray! I built it. Congrats! Please also check the package with lintian. > How do I sign the dsc and changes files with gpg before uploading to > mentors site with dput. The intro guide should document that, but it should be enough to run debsign and debrelease (both from devscripts) . https://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Re: my first debian package
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 7:15 PM Paul Wise wrote: ... > Once the package is ready, you can upload it to the mentors site and > ask for a sponsor. If you have any questions while creating the > package, you can ask them on this list or on the #debian-mentors IRC > channel. > > https://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers > https://mentors.debian.net/sponsors/rfs-howto > Hurray! I built it. Everything is now updated in the git repo here https://bitbucket.org/robark/python3-fltk/src/master How do I sign the dsc and changes files with gpg before uploading to mentors site with dput.
Re: my first debian package
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:57 PM Robert Arkiletian wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 7:15 PM Paul Wise wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 11:03 AM Robert Arkiletian wrote: > > > > > Thank you for your suggestions. I think I have finally finished making > > > the package. However, the final step debuild -us -uc fails > > > with an error message stating that the source package has two > > > conflicting values: pyfltk and python3-fltk. > > > > The debian/changelog has the wrong package name at the top, it is also > > missing all the history from the old package that was in Debian > > before. > > > > > I'm hoping someone can help me co-maintain it or help me get this > > > package accepted. For your information I am a high school CS teacher > > > in Canada who uses python fltk to teach gui programming. It's a lot > > > easier to tell my students to simply type apt-get install python3-fltk > > > than to get them to build and install the package from source. So I am > > > trying to get the package back into Debian for Buster. > > > > Once the package is ready, you can upload it to the mentors site and > > ask for a sponsor. If you have any questions while creating the > > package, you can ask them on this list or on the #debian-mentors IRC > > channel. > > > > https://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers > > https://mentors.debian.net/sponsors/rfs-howto > > Ok I got it a bit further. I fixed the issues mentioned and pushed the > fixes to bitbucket. > > https://bitbucket.org/robark/python3-fltk/src/master > > Now I'm getting this error. Any help would be appreciated. > > dpkg-source --before-build . > dpkg-buildpackage: info: host architecture amd64 > fakeroot debian/rules clean > dh clean --with python3 >dh_auto_clean > dh_auto_clean: Please use the third-party "pybuild" build system > instead of python-distutils > dh_auto_clean: This feature will be removed in compat 12. > pyversions: error parsing Python-Version attribute > dh_auto_clean: pyversions -r failed [4] > make: *** [debian/rules:4: clean] Error 4 > dpkg-buildpackage: error: fakeroot debian/rules clean subprocess > returned exit status 2 > debuild: fatal error at line 1182: > dpkg-buildpackage -us -uc -ui failed Ok got a little further. changed rules file to #export DH_VERBOSE=1 export PYBUILD_NAME=fltk %: dh $@ --with python3 --buildsystem=pybuild but now I'm getting this error dpkg-source --before-build . dpkg-buildpackage: info: host architecture amd64 fakeroot debian/rules clean debian/rules: 4: debian/rules: %:: not found dh_auto_clean -O--buildsystem=pybuild I: pybuild base:217: python3.7 setup.py clean Building for Linux ['./src', './contrib', '/usr/include'] Checking FLTK configuration ... Checking fltk-config using FLTK_HOME Checking fltk-config using default installation Using FLTK: ['1.3.4\n'] fltk-config includes: ['/usr/include/cairo', '/usr/include/glib-2.0', '/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/glib-2.0/include', '/usr/include/pixman-1', '/usr/include/freetype2', '/usr/include/libpng16', '/usr/include/freetype2', '/usr/include/libpng16', '/usr/include/cairo', '/usr/include/glib-2.0', '/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/glib-2.0/include', '/usr/include/pixman-1', '/usr/include/freetype2', '/usr/include/libpng16'] fltk-config link paths: [] fltk-config link libraries: ['fltk_images', 'fltk_gl', 'fltk_forms', 'fltk', 'X11'] FLTK was configured without multi-threading support! FLTK was configured with OpenGL support! FLTK was configured with Forms support! done running clean removing '/home/*/build/python3-fltk/pyFltk-1.3.4.1/.pybuild/cpython3_3.7_fltk/build' (and everything under it) 'build/bdist.linux-amd64' does not exist -- can't clean it 'build/scripts-3.7' does not exist -- can't clean it I: pybuild base:217: python3.7-dbg setup.py clean Building for Linux ['./src', './contrib', '/usr/include'] Checking FLTK configuration ... Checking fltk-config using FLTK_HOME Checking fltk-config using default installation Using FLTK: ['1.3.4\n'] fltk-config includes: ['/usr/include/cairo', '/usr/include/glib-2.0', '/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/glib-2.0/include', '/usr/include/pixman-1', '/usr/include/freetype2', '/usr/include/libpng16', '/usr/include/freetype2', '/usr/include/libpng16', '/usr/include/cairo', '/usr/include/glib-2.0', '/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/glib-2.0/include', '/usr/include/pixman-1', '/usr/include/freetype2', '/usr/include/libpng16'] fltk-config link paths: [] fltk-config link libraries: ['fltk_images', 'fltk_gl', 'fltk_forms', 'fltk', 'X11'] FLTK was configured without multi-threading support! FLTK was configured with OpenGL support! FLTK was configured with Forms support! done running clean removing '/home/*/build/python3-fltk/pyFltk-1.3.4.1/.pybuild/cpython3_3.7_dbg_fltk/build' (and everything under it) /usr/lib/python3.7/subprocess.py:858: ResourceWarning: subprocess 3113 is still running ResourceWarning, source=self) ResourceWarning: Enable tracemalloc to get the object allocation traceback
Re: my first debian package
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 7:15 PM Paul Wise wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 11:03 AM Robert Arkiletian wrote: > > > Thank you for your suggestions. I think I have finally finished making > > the package. However, the final step debuild -us -uc fails > > with an error message stating that the source package has two > > conflicting values: pyfltk and python3-fltk. > > The debian/changelog has the wrong package name at the top, it is also > missing all the history from the old package that was in Debian > before. > > > I'm hoping someone can help me co-maintain it or help me get this > > package accepted. For your information I am a high school CS teacher > > in Canada who uses python fltk to teach gui programming. It's a lot > > easier to tell my students to simply type apt-get install python3-fltk > > than to get them to build and install the package from source. So I am > > trying to get the package back into Debian for Buster. > > Once the package is ready, you can upload it to the mentors site and > ask for a sponsor. If you have any questions while creating the > package, you can ask them on this list or on the #debian-mentors IRC > channel. > > https://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers > https://mentors.debian.net/sponsors/rfs-howto Ok I got it a bit further. I fixed the issues mentioned and pushed the fixes to bitbucket. https://bitbucket.org/robark/python3-fltk/src/master Now I'm getting this error. Any help would be appreciated. dpkg-source --before-build . dpkg-buildpackage: info: host architecture amd64 fakeroot debian/rules clean dh clean --with python3 dh_auto_clean dh_auto_clean: Please use the third-party "pybuild" build system instead of python-distutils dh_auto_clean: This feature will be removed in compat 12. pyversions: error parsing Python-Version attribute dh_auto_clean: pyversions -r failed [4] make: *** [debian/rules:4: clean] Error 4 dpkg-buildpackage: error: fakeroot debian/rules clean subprocess returned exit status 2 debuild: fatal error at line 1182: dpkg-buildpackage -us -uc -ui failed
Re: my first debian package
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 11:03 AM Robert Arkiletian wrote: > I'm hoping someone can help me co-maintain it or help me get this > package accepted. For your information I am a high school CS teacher > in Canada who uses python fltk to teach gui programming. It's a lot > easier to tell my students to simply type apt-get install python3-fltk > than to get them to build and install the package from source. So I am > trying to get the package back into Debian for Buster. PS: That is a great motivation for getting it back into Debian, though the timing is very tight before the freeze. Also, there are some local Debian groups in Canada you might like to meet up with. https://release.debian.org/#release-dates https://wiki.debian.org/LocalGroups#Canada https://wiki.debian.org/DebianLocations -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Re: my first debian package
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 11:03 AM Robert Arkiletian wrote: > Thank you for your suggestions. I think I have finally finished making > the package. However, the final step debuild -us -uc fails > with an error message stating that the source package has two > conflicting values: pyfltk and python3-fltk. The debian/changelog has the wrong package name at the top, it is also missing all the history from the old package that was in Debian before. > I'm hoping someone can help me co-maintain it or help me get this > package accepted. For your information I am a high school CS teacher > in Canada who uses python fltk to teach gui programming. It's a lot > easier to tell my students to simply type apt-get install python3-fltk > than to get them to build and install the package from source. So I am > trying to get the package back into Debian for Buster. Once the package is ready, you can upload it to the mentors site and ask for a sponsor. If you have any questions while creating the package, you can ask them on this list or on the #debian-mentors IRC channel. https://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers https://mentors.debian.net/sponsors/rfs-howto -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Re: my first debian package
Thank you for your suggestions. I think I have finally finished making the package. However, the final step debuild -us -uc fails with an error message stating that the source package has two conflicting values: pyfltk and python3-fltk. I have uploaded the package source to https://bitbucket.org/robark/python3-fltk/src/master I'm hoping someone can help me co-maintain it or help me get this package accepted. For your information I am a high school CS teacher in Canada who uses python fltk to teach gui programming. It's a lot easier to tell my students to simply type apt-get install python3-fltk than to get them to build and install the package from source. So I am trying to get the package back into Debian for Buster. PS I have emailed the former maintainer but the email address seems to not be active anymore as I got a mail delivery failure message back. Thanks
Re: my first debian package
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 4:02 PM Andreas Tille wrote: > which conserves the main important parts of history without any > hassle to deal with archived svn. This will drop commit messages and any changes that weren't uploaded. Personally, I never found dealing with local subversion databases any hassle, svn supports them as if they were remote databases, similarly to git. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Re: my first debian package
On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 02:48:38PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > of the repository to git and continue from there. You can also skip > the conversion and just checkout the latest svn revision and continue > from there. May be its easier and in the end more sensible to create a Git archive via gbp import-dscs --ignore-repo-config --debsnap --pristine-tar pyfltk which conserves the main important parts of history without any hassle to deal with archived svn. Kind regards Andreas > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/pyfltk > https://alioth-archive.debian.org/svn/python-modules.tar.xz > https://snapshot.debian.org/package/pyfltk/ -- http://fam-tille.de
Re: my first debian package
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 2:36 PM Robert Arkiletian wrote: > The package used to be in debian before but has been orphaned. When reintroducing packages, there are some extra steps to perform in addition to the ones done when adding new packages: https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch05.html#reintroducing-pkgs > The package is python-fltk That is the binary package name, the source package name is pyfltk. Removed packaging should be retrieved from the VCS for the package, failing that, from the Debian snapshot archive. In this case the repository was SVN on alioth, which is now archived, so you'll have to get the python-modules tarball, unpack it and convert the pyfltk part of the repository to git and continue from there. You can also skip the conversion and just checkout the latest svn revision and continue from there. https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/pyfltk https://alioth-archive.debian.org/svn/python-modules.tar.xz https://snapshot.debian.org/package/pyfltk/ -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
my first debian package
Hi I am trying to create a debian package and submit it before the Buster Feb 12 soft freeze. The package used to be in debian before but has been orphaned. The package is python-fltk I am in the process of learning how to build the package. I found a previous xenial ubuntu package here https://packages.ubuntu.com/xenial/python-fltk So I am basically copying the stuff in the debian directory and making the required changes. However, the old package was a python 2 package. The one I am building will be for python 3. So I have changed the name to python3-fltk. It's a python library that wraps the C++ fltk gui toolkit. Am I too late to submit this for Buster. Any tips or advice is appreciated.
Re: GREAT news: My First Debian Package ! - vpcs
On 01/20/2012 06:27 AM, Alexey Eromenko wrote: GREAT news: I'm ready to upload my first Debian package ! Link: (source + amd64 binary) http://forum.gns3.net/post14018.html = NAME vpcs - A light-weight network virtual pc simulator. DESCRIPTION The VPCS can simulate up to 9 PCs. You can ping/traceroute them, or ping/traceroute the other hosts/routers from the virtual PCs when you study the Cisco routers in the Dynamips. VPCS is not the traditional PC, it is just a program, and only few network commands can be used in it. But VPCS can give you a big hand when you study the Cisco devices in the Dynamips. VPCS can replace the routers or virtual machine boxes which are used as PCs in the Dynamips net‐ work. It can connect to VirtualBox or to GNS3 Network Simulator. = I have tested the final package on a Debian 6.0 AMD64 box. And it works ! It passes lintian with only few warnings; Suggestions welcome ! Where to upload it ? This package is very small, but it is needed for my GNS3 users and to get me involved with Debian. That's why it is important. I patched the makefile with quilt + made a man page. Erik: Could you sponsor me ? Hi , you can use mentord.debian.org to upload the package . Here are some useful links about mentors [0] [1]. To create a proper debian/copyright file please read DEP5 proposal [2] . These are lintian warnings which should be fixed: W: vpcs source: dh-make-template-in-source debian/vpcs.doc-base.EX W: vpcs source: format-3.0-but-debian-changes-patch W: vpcs source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.8.4 (current is 3.9.2) W: vpcs: new-package-should-close-itp-bug W: vpcs: copyright-refers-to-deprecated-bsd-license-file E: vpcs: helper-templates-in-copyright W: vpcs: description-synopsis-starts-with-article W: vpcs: extended-description-line-too-long I usually run lintian -Iivcm *.changes to get more verbose output . Best regards , Alex [0] http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMentorsFaq#Packaging [1] http://mentors.debian.net/qa [2] http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ -- 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/4f19289c.5070...@biotec.tu-dresden.de
Re: GREAT news: My First Debian Package ! - vpcs
These are lintian warnings which should be fixed: W: vpcs source: dh-make-template-in-source debian/vpcs.doc-base.EX W: vpcs source: format-3.0-but-debian-changes-patch W: vpcs source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.8.4 (current is 3.9.2) W: vpcs: new-package-should-close-itp-bug W: vpcs: copyright-refers-to-deprecated-bsd-license-file E: vpcs: helper-templates-in-copyright W: vpcs: description-synopsis-starts-with-article W: vpcs: extended-description-line-too-long I usually run lintian -Iivcm *.changes to get more verbose output . Standard lintian gives me no errors, but only few warnings: user@xrig:/vm/tmp/vpcs-0.3$ lintian ../vpcs_0.3-1_amd64.deb W: vpcs: new-package-should-close-itp-bug W: vpcs: copyright-refers-to-deprecated-bsd-license-file W: vpcs: extended-description-line-too-long Why so huge diff ? -- -Alexey Eromenko Technologov -- 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/CAOJ6w=HppDry=zzs+7yex8ctrw3yxanvq3qv1d5drb5dv4z...@mail.gmail.com
Re: GREAT news: My First Debian Package ! - vpcs
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Alexey Eromenko wrote: Standard lintian gives me no errors, but only few warnings: ... Why so huge diff ? pabs@chianamo ~ $ cat ~/.lintianrc info=yes display-info=yes display-experimental=yes pedantic=yes show-overrides=yes color=auto -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- 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/CAKTje6Fuy9TLGYK2uGyWL-9YXOLu1e-6TY=yz5tJavT7hBEc=q...@mail.gmail.com
Re: GREAT news: My First Debian Package ! - vpcs
pabs@chianamo ~ $ cat ~/.lintianrc info=yes display-info=yes display-experimental=yes pedantic=yes show-overrides=yes color=auto I have copied your file, but now I get this: user@xrig:/vm/tmp/vpcs-0.3$ lintian ../vpcs_0.3-1_amd64.deb syntax error in configuration file: info=yes -- -Alexey Eromenko Technologov -- 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/CAOJ6w=gxt5hnnfpbmzc2co-83-4pbkrzp4krfg5knaz8ffp...@mail.gmail.com
Re: GREAT news: My First Debian Package ! - vpcs
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Alexey Eromenko wrote: I have copied your file, but now I get this: user@xrig:/vm/tmp/vpcs-0.3$ lintian ../vpcs_0.3-1_amd64.deb syntax error in configuration file: info=yes I get no such error, hmmm. Also, you should run lintian on the .changes file so that both the source package and all binary packages are checked. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- 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/caktje6hrzfz9sugydtngujj5h-_9ceek3itb8z_qqwrxlvp...@mail.gmail.com
Re: GREAT news: My First Debian Package ! - vpcs
On 01/20/2012 10:48 AM, Alexey Eromenko wrote: pabs@chianamo ~ $ cat ~/.lintianrc info=yes display-info=yes display-experimental=yes pedantic=yes show-overrides=yes color=auto I have copied your file, but now I get this: user@xrig:/vm/tmp/vpcs-0.3$ lintian ../vpcs_0.3-1_amd64.deb syntax error in configuration file: info=yes It seems to me that your lintian is rather old . IMO it is always better to use lintian from sid . Best regards , Alex -- 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/4f193b18.9030...@biotec.tu-dresden.de
Re: GREAT news: My First Debian Package ! - vpcs
Hi! Am 20.01.2012 10:59, schrieb Alex Mestiashvili: It seems to me that your lintian is rather old . IMO it is always better to use lintian from sid . ... or just the one from backports.debian.org Best regards, Alexander -- 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/4f193d9d.9050...@debian.org
GREAT news: My First Debian Package ! - vpcs
GREAT news: I'm ready to upload my first Debian package ! Link: (source + amd64 binary) http://forum.gns3.net/post14018.html = NAME vpcs - A light-weight network virtual pc simulator. DESCRIPTION The VPCS can simulate up to 9 PCs. You can ping/traceroute them, or ping/traceroute the other hosts/routers from the virtual PCs when you study the Cisco routers in the Dynamips. VPCS is not the traditional PC, it is just a program, and only few network commands can be used in it. But VPCS can give you a big hand when you study the Cisco devices in the Dynamips. VPCS can replace the routers or virtual machine boxes which are used as PCs in the Dynamips net‐ work. It can connect to VirtualBox or to GNS3 Network Simulator. = I have tested the final package on a Debian 6.0 AMD64 box. And it works ! It passes lintian with only few warnings; Suggestions welcome ! Where to upload it ? This package is very small, but it is needed for my GNS3 users and to get me involved with Debian. That's why it is important. I patched the makefile with quilt + made a man page. Erik: Could you sponsor me ? -- -Alexey Eromenko Technologov -- 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/CAOJ6w=hghc-5x0amokzygnxbk9qncqdkzadvx7pp+v-3umz...@mail.gmail.com
Please review my first debian-package.
Hi, I'm trying for the first time to get a package into the offical debian-repository. You can find it here: http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/sponsor-pkglist?action=details;package=jondo . Any feedback about this package are welcome! regards Rorschach -- Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (pgp: 0xD6DEB90A) Irc : Rorschach on irc.freenode.net Web : http://rorschachstagebuch.wordpress.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Please review my first debian-package.
I'm trying for the first time to get a package into the offical debian-repository. You can find it here: http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/sponsor-pkglist?action=details;package=jondo . Any feedback about this package are welcome! Welcome to Debian packaging. The first step in getting a package into Debian is to file an ITP against the pseudo-package WNPP that details what you are interested in packaging. This is forwarded to debian-devel and allows experienced developers to comment on possible licensing issues, etc. This is all handled through reportbug. You will then close this bug in your changelog. See http://newpeople.debian.org/~mpalmer/debian-mentors_FAQ.html for a quick synopsis of the process. As far as your package goes, please make sure that it is lintian clean. lintian currently reports a number of problems with your package: W: jondo source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.7.3 (current is 3.8.0) W: jondo source: maintainer-not-full-name Rorschach W: jondo: readme-debian-contains-debmake-template W: jondo: executable-not-elf-or-script ./usr/share/pixmaps/jondo.xpm W: jondo: executable-not-elf-or-script ./usr/share/java/JAP.jar W: jondo: copyright-lists-upstream-authors-with-dh_make-boilerplate W: jondo: description-synopsis-might-not-be-phrased-properly W: jondo: extended-description-line-too-long W: jondo: extended-description-line-too-long W: jondo: extended-description-line-too-long W: jondo: extended-description-line-too-long W: jondo: extended-description-line-too-long W: jondo: new-package-should-close-itp-bug W: jondo: maintainer-not-full-name Rorschach Use lintian -iI to show information tips and get more verbose information on each warning. In general, a lot of the issues are that you haven't cleaned out the cruft from dh_make. For instance, you have an extra (s) in the copyright file, README.Debian is just a template, etc. Cheers, -- Daniel Moerner [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please review my first debian-package.
Hi! Your package only contains a JAR file with binary files. You should compile the Java source files yourself instead. I have no experience with Java packages myself so I can not help you there. I found some information about Building Java Packages in Debian[1] by the Debian Java Packaging Project. Have you already read the usual documentation on creating Debian packages[2][3][4]? Regards, Ansgar [1] http://pkg-java.alioth.debian.org/building.html [2] http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/ [3] http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ [4] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ -- PGP: 1024D/595FAD19 739E 2D09 0969 BEA9 9797 B055 DDB0 2FF7 595F AD19 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cannot make (my first) debian package
On Thursday 05 May 2005 11:09, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote: You're using PDF as *source*? How come? I am now using the latex file as source. Why don't you simply check some packages that contain binary files? `apt-get source asc-music` What a wonderful idea! I have never downloaded a source package. I looked at some packages of the doc section and found many interesting hints. In the end I have managed to build a debian package which compiles the pdf file from a latex source. It installs in /usr/share/doc. It works. I have still to understand why :) -- On this laptop no Windows system survives and LINUX POWER reigns UNLIMITED. Successfully Microsoft free since December 2002. GnuPG key ID: 28A61681 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cannot make (my first) debian package
On Sun, 08 May 2005 13:17:32 +0200 Bas Wijnen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ricardo Mones wrote: On Thu, 05 May 2005 10:23:19 -0400 Brenda J. Butler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyway your case is clearly different, your source is a kpr file not a pdf one. If not, then how should I proceed? I can put the .kpr, .ps and .pdf in the package... I could place the .kpr, .ps and .pdf in /usr/share/doc/myslides... does that sound reasonable? Do you have a better suggestion? It sounds pretty reasonable to me, maybe adding a note to the README.Debian saying the kpr is the original source and kpresenter package is required to modify it, for example. The source should of course be in the source package, but I don't see why it needs to be in the .deb. Other packages don't include their sources in /usr/share/doc... Why would it make sense to do that for this one? Basically saving bandwidth. Given you cannot process the kpr source without human intervention, she will have to put also the ps and pdf files in the source package. The size of the kpr is also negligible compared with these two. If you don't put the kpr in the binary package any user wanting the source will need to download again all the source with ps/ pdf data (already on the disk) just for getting the small kpr. I'm sure somebody with a T1 pipe won't mind download, 1 Mb (for example) source package for getting a 50 Kb kpr file. A modem user won't think the same, neither should the server admin, specially if is paying for bandwidth ;) -- Ricardo Mones Lastra - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Centro de Inteligencia Artificial, Universidad de Oviedo en Gijon 33271 Asturias, SPAIN. - http://www.aic.uniovi.es/mones -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cannot make (my first) debian package
Ricardo Mones wrote: On Thu, 05 May 2005 10:23:19 -0400 Brenda J. Butler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyway your case is clearly different, your source is a kpr file not a pdf one. If not, then how should I proceed? I can put the .kpr, .ps and .pdf in the package... I could place the .kpr, .ps and .pdf in /usr/share/doc/myslides... does that sound reasonable? Do you have a better suggestion? It sounds pretty reasonable to me, maybe adding a note to the README.Debian saying the kpr is the original source and kpresenter package is required to modify it, for example. The source should of course be in the source package, but I don't see why it needs to be in the .deb. Other packages don't include their sources in /usr/share/doc... Why would it make sense to do that for this one? Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
cannot make (my first) debian package
Hello debian superusers, I have written an advanced debian tutorial and decided to try to build a debian package from it. I used the pdf format as source and, after reading the maintainer stuff, tried to build the package thinking it would be easy since there are no dependencies. Unfortunately I proved to be wrong and could not build the package. Here is what I did: 1. I put the the tar.gz compressed pdf file in a source directory 2. As root I entered such directory and typed: # dh_make -e [EMAIL PROTECTED] -f debianadv-0.0.20050317.tar.gz Type of package: single binary, multiple binary, library, or kernel module? [s/m/l/k] s Maintainer name : Mauro Darida Email-Address : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 19:58:23 +0200 Package Name: debianadv Version : 0.0.20050317 Type of Package : Single Hit enter to confirm: Currently there is no top level Makefile. This may require additional tuning. Done. Please edit the files in the debian/ subdirectory now. You should also check that the debianadv Makefiles install into $DESTDIR and not in / . 3. In the debian/ subdir I changed DESTDIR=/usr/share/doc/debianadv in file rules and in the same file commented out all binary-arch commands. I did not use any .ex files. Then typed: # dpkg-buildpackage dpkg-buildpackage: source package is debianadv dpkg-buildpackage: source version is 0.0.20050317-1 dpkg-buildpackage: source maintainer is Mauro Darida [EMAIL PROTECTED] dpkg-buildpackage: host architecture is i386 debian/rules clean dh_testdir dh_testroot rm -f build-stamp configure-stamp # Add here commands to clean up after the build process. /usr/bin/make clean make[1]: Entering directory `/home/mario/doc/Progetto_debianadvanced/debianadv-0.0.20050317' make[1]: *** No rule to make target `clean'. Stop. make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/mario/doc/Progetto_debianadvanced/debianadv-0.0.20050317' make: [clean] Error 2 (ignored) dh_clean dpkg-source -b debianadv-0.0.20050317 dpkg-source: building debianadv using existing debianadv_0.0.20050317.orig.tar.gz dpkg-source: building debianadv in debianadv_0.0.20050317-1.diff.gz dpkg-source: cannot represent change to debianadv-0.0.20050317.tar.gz: binary file contents changed dpkg-source: building debianadv in debianadv_0.0.20050317-1.dsc dpkg-source: unrepresentable changes to source I cannot proceed form here. I think that probably the problem is that I do not have a source code but just a pdf document. All the documentation I read was always talking about source file and thought it was ok for a pdf file also, but I suspect I am wrong. So, what is the procedure for building a package for a pdf doc? Did I miss something in the maintainer documentation? Or maybe I am just too bold and ignorant and have to give up? -- On this laptop no Windows system survives and LINUX POWER reigns UNLIMITED. Successfully Microsoft free since December 2002. GnuPG key ID: 28A61681 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cannot make (my first) debian package
Mauro Darida wrote: Currently there is no top level Makefile. This may require additional tuning. Done. Please edit the files in the debian/ subdirectory now. You should also check that the debianadv Makefiles install into $DESTDIR and not in / . This is an important warning. If you understand it, you probably understand the problem. /usr/bin/make clean Without a Makefile, this will of course fail. Make sure this line does not appear in debian/rules. In your case, you don't need to do anything for clean, so you can just remove it. It didn't get to the make install phase, but that would also be a problem. You'll have to change that to something which puts the pdf file in the correct tree. cp would not be a bad choice, I think. Of course you can also create a Makefile in your sources which has a clean and install target which do nothing and the copy. I cannot proceed form here. I think that probably the problem is that I do not have a source code but just a pdf document. It is quite possible to build packages which don't need compiling, but in case of pdf, there probably really is some source (for example, a LaTeX file). It might be useful to really compile that instead of using the binary as if it was source (as you do now). However, there is no reason that this approach should not work, AFAICS. Or maybe I am just too bold and ignorant and have to give up? Never give up, unless you understand what's happening and know it can't be done (or isn't worth the trouble). I only just built my own first package, so my comments may not be the most valuable, but I hope they help you anyway. GnuPG key ID: 28A61681 Then why don't you sign your message? Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: cannot make (my first) debian package
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 09:22:28PM +0200, Mauro Darida wrote: I have written an advanced debian tutorial and decided to try to build a debian package from it. I used the pdf format as source and, after reading the maintainer stuff, tried to build the package thinking it would be easy since there are no dependencies. You're using PDF as *source*? How come? [...] I cannot proceed form here. I think that probably the problem is that I do not have a source code but just a pdf document. All the documentation I read was always talking about source file and thought it was ok for a pdf file also, but I suspect I am wrong. So, what is the procedure for building a package for a pdf doc? Did I miss something in the maintainer documentation? Or maybe I am just too bold and ignorant and have to give up? Why don't you simply check some packages that contain binary files? `apt-get source asc-music` I chose asc-music package cause that's one of my package so I'm sure it will be similar to yours. Just take a look at rules file and the most important for you will be dh_install call along with debian/install file. regards fEnIo -- ,''`. Bartosz Fenski | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | pgp:0x13fefc40 | irc:fEnIo : :' : 32-050 Skawina - Glowackiego 3/15 - w. malopolskie - Poland `. `' phone:+48602383548 | proud Debian maintainer and user `- http://skawina.eu.org | jid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | rlu:172001 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: cannot make (my first) debian package
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 11:09:57AM +0200, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote: On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 09:22:28PM +0200, Mauro Darida wrote: I have written an advanced debian tutorial and decided to try to build a debian package from it. I used the pdf format as source and, after reading the maintainer stuff, tried to build the package thinking it would be easy since there are no dependencies. You're using PDF as *source*? How come? I'm also making a package of presentation slides. I made the slides using kpresenter, so the source is a .kpr file. Is there a way to get the .pdf or .ps from the .kpr without bringing up the kpresenter interface? If not, then how should I proceed? I can put the .kpr, .ps and .pdf in the package... I could place the .kpr, .ps and .pdf in /usr/share/doc/myslides... does that sound reasonable? Do you have a better suggestion? thanks and cheerio, bjb (ambrose on irc) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cannot make (my first) debian package
On Thu, 05 May 2005 10:23:19 -0400 Brenda J. Butler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 11:09:57AM +0200, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote: On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 09:22:28PM +0200, Mauro Darida wrote: I have written an advanced debian tutorial and decided to try to build a debian package from it. I used the pdf format as source and, after reading the maintainer stuff, tried to build the package thinking it would be easy since there are no dependencies. You're using PDF as *source*? How come? I'm also making a package of presentation slides. I made the slides using kpresenter, so the source is a .kpr file. Is there a way to get the .pdf or .ps from the .kpr without bringing up the kpresenter interface? There is a --print file command line option, but also brings a dialog up. Maybe can be tweaked for using the pdf/ps output as default without showing the dialog, but that's beyond my KDE knowledge. Anyway your case is clearly different, your source is a kpr file not a pdf one. If not, then how should I proceed? I can put the .kpr, .ps and .pdf in the package... I could place the .kpr, .ps and .pdf in /usr/share/doc/myslides... does that sound reasonable? Do you have a better suggestion? It sounds pretty reasonable to me, maybe adding a note to the README.Debian saying the kpr is the original source and kpresenter package is required to modify it, for example. regards, -- Ricardo Mones Lastra - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Centro de Inteligencia Artificial, Universidad de Oviedo en Gijon 33271 Asturias, SPAIN. - http://www.aic.uniovi.es/mones -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
