Looking for libde265 package review / sponsor
Hi all, sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but I didn't get any feedback on my ITP bugreport on mentors.debian.net [1] for almost a month now, so I decided to also try here... I packaged our H.265/HEVC decoder library libde265 for Debian and am looking for review and a sponsor to get it included in Debian. * Package name: libde265 Version : 0.6-1 Upstream Author : struktur AG * URL : https://github.com/strukturag/libde265 * License : LGPL Section : libs It builds those binary packages: libde265 - Open h.265 video codec implementation libde265-dbg - Open h.265 video codec implementation - debug symbols libde265-dev - Open h.265 video codec implementation - development files libde265-examples - Open h.265 video codec implementation - examples To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/libde265 Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libd/libde265/libde265_0.6-1.dsc More information about libde265 can be obtained from https://github.com/strukturag/libde265 Changes since the last upload: - Updated to latest upstream version 0.6 - Updated Standards-Version to 3.9.5 Thanks and best regards, Joachim Bauch [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=740626 ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Looking for libde265 package review / sponsor
Hi, On 31.03.2014 12:05, Alessio Treglia wrote: You've come to the right please, I (and maybe some more of us) am going to give you some guidance. [...] thanks for the information and links, creating the git repository and doing the initial changes. That helped a lot. I now updated a couple of things based on your and IOhannes' feedback and commited to the repository: - added missing license information to the copyright file - referenced the ITP bug in the changelog - fixed a couple of small issues in the build script - renamed the binary package to include the so-version - install the pkg-config file and more documentation files Symbol versioning should be deferred to a later release as we are currently also exporting internal functions. That should be changed upstream before we can use it in the Debian package. What are the next steps that need to be done for the package to get it included in Debian? Could you please review the latest changes? Thanks and best regards, Joachim ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Looking for libde265 package review / sponsor
Hi, On 03.04.2014 17:06, Fabian Greffrath wrote: Am Montag, den 31.03.2014, 08:26 -0400 schrieb Reinhard Tartler: I wonder in what ways libde265 compares to the HEVC decoder we currently have in libavcodec? Which one is faster? Does one of them support more HEVC streams? What extra benefit does libde265 bring to Debian, and what applications require it? Is the decoder in libavcodec based on OpenHEVC? Is OpenHEVC also able to encode h.265 content? Is x265 also able to decode h.265 content? Are there any more implementations than those three that were already mentioned? Why is that all so complicated? ;) :) libde265 and the openHEVC-based decoder in libavcodec are currently at about the same development status with comparable performance, reaching around 50fps @ 4K. With libde265, the applications or plugins depend on a smaller library which is more modular. We are concentrating on streaming applications and want to support additional features that are not possible with a catch-all API, like dynamic switching between sub-streams with different fps. Work on a complementing encoder is currently starting. We have ARM NEON support in the queue and are evaluating whether CUDA support makes sense. Applications/plugins using libde265 are a GStreamer 0.10/1.0 plugin [1], a HEVC/H.265 decoder plugin for VLC 2.x [2] [3] and DirectShow filters for Windows [4]. Best regards, Joachim [1] https://github.com/strukturag/gstreamer-libde265 [2] https://github.com/strukturag/vlc-libde265 [3] https://github.com/strukturag/vlc [4] https://github.com/strukturag/LAVFilters ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Looking for libde265 package review / sponsor
Hi, On 03.04.2014 16:49, Joachim Bauch wrote: [...] What are the next steps that need to be done for the package to get it included in Debian? Could you please review the latest changes? I just updated the source package on mentors.debian.net [1] and created an ITP bug [2]. Is there anything else I need to do to continue getting the package into Debian? Thanks and best regards, Joachim [1] https://mentors.debian.net/package/libde265 [2] http://bugs.debian.org/744190 ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
RFS: libde265 0.6-1 (Open h.265 video codec implementation)
Dear all, I'm still looking for someone to sponsor and upload my package of libde265. Source code in Git: http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-multimedia/libde265.git;a=summary Source package on mentors.debian.net: https://mentors.debian.net/package/libde265 ITP bug: http://bugs.debian.org/744190 Am I missing any steps I need to do to get the package into Debian, or are more packaging changes required? Thanks and best regards, Joachim ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: libde265_0.6-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Hi Thorsten, thanks for the feedback to the package. Please find my comments about LGPLv3 / GPLv3 below. On 30.07.2014 14:00, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: unfortunately I have to reject your package. According to the file headers (dec265/* and libde265/* both say they are part of libde265) you mix GPLv3- and LGPLv3-code and say that the result is LGPLv3 (in Readme.md). This is not possible as the result must be GPLv3. The decoder library libde265 which is LGPLv3 is compiled only from the sources in folder libde265 (and subfolders). The folders dec265 (and sherlock265) contain example applications that use the decoder (through dynamic linking of the library). These example applications are GPLv3. Can you please rework your license information? How should the license information be reworked? Is it sufficient to update the Readme.md to state that the library is LGPLv3 but the sample apps are GPLv3? If so, can this be done through a patch while packaging? Best regards, Joachim ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: libde265_0.6-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Hi Thorsten, thanks for the detailed feedback, please see my comments below. On 30.07.2014 16:05, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: ok, so I would suggest to change the header of those application files from This file is part of libde265. to something like This file is part of a sample application to show the usage of libde265: Ok, this has been changed. How should the license information be reworked? Is it sufficient to update the Readme.md to state that the library is LGPLv3 but the sample apps are GPLv3? Yes, that would be ok. The icing on the cake would be if you add this as comment to debian/copyright as well. The Readme.md has been updated and a comment added to debian/copyright. No, that information should be part of the source tarball that everybody can download. I understand. We created a new release that contains all your feedback. @Alessio: could you (or any other uploader) please review my changes and create/upload a new package of libde265? I updated the git repository on alioth with these changes: - Fixed debian/watch to download release tarball, not source tarball. - Updated libde265 to latest upstream version 0.8 - Added libswscale-dev as build dependency so sherlock265 example will be compiled. - Reduced amount of exported symbols and updated .symbols file. - Added comment about only the samples being GPL to debian/copyright. Thanks in advance and best regards, Joachim ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: libde265_0.6-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Hi Fabian, On 04.08.2014 09:18, Fabian Greffrath wrote: Am Donnerstag, den 31.07.2014, 12:02 +0200 schrieb Joachim Bauch: - Fixed debian/watch to download release tarball, not source tarball. I don' understand this change. If the release tarball does not contain the sources, this is most probably wrong. the release tarball is the result of make dist and provided as download from the releases page on Github, so it will include the sources, too. Best regards, Joachim ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: libde265_0.6-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Dear team, On 31.07.2014 12:02, Joachim Bauch wrote: [...] I understand. We created a new release that contains all your feedback. @Alessio: could you (or any other uploader) please review my changes and create/upload a new package of libde265? I updated the git repository on alioth with these changes: - Fixed debian/watch to download release tarball, not source tarball. - Updated libde265 to latest upstream version 0.8 - Added libswscale-dev as build dependency so sherlock265 example will be compiled. - Reduced amount of exported symbols and updated .symbols file. - Added comment about only the samples being GPL to debian/copyright. [...] just a quick follow-up on my last mail. As this is my first package I'm not sure if there is anything else I should do, or if I should just wait until someone finds some time to upload it. Due to the lack of feedback I find it difficult to know if progress is stalled because I'm missing some steps, or because everybody is busy doing other stuff - which I totally understand ;-) Thanks, Joachim ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: libde265_0.6-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Hi Sebastian, thanks for the detailed feedback. On 08.08.2014 16:29, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: If Alessio (or someone else) doesn't beat me, here are some points that I'd like to see fixed before I'd upload it: [...] All reported issues have been changed in the repository on alioth. * (This doesn't affect Debian since the files in extra are not used, but you should get this addressed upstream: BSD-4-clause and the GPL are incompatible (see for an example #744267). So anyone using these files instead of another getopt implementation is unable to distribute the binaries.) I've reported this upstream to our developers, so we can resolve this in one of the next versions. Please let me know if there is anything you want to have changed, or are happy to upload it now ;-) Thanks again and best regards, Joachim ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: libde265_0.6-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
On 08.08.2014 17:21, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: [...] Please update the date in the changelog trailer to match today's date (run dch -r again) and then I'll build and upload. Done. Best regards, Joachim ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: libde265_0.6-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
On 08.08.2014 17:35, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: Uploaded. Great, thanks! ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: libde265_0.6-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Hi Thorsten, On 30.07.2014 14:00, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: unfortunately I have to reject your package. According to the file headers (dec265/* and libde265/* both say they are part of libde265) you mix GPLv3- and LGPLv3-code and say that the result is LGPLv3 (in Readme.md). This is not possible as the result must be GPLv3. Can you please rework your license information? all your concerns have been addressed as discussed in the upload of libde265 0.8-1 which is now pending in the NEW queue: https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/libde265_0.8-1.html Could you please review the updated package when you get some time? Thanks in advance and best regards, Joachim ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
New version of libde265 available for upload
Hi all, there is a new upstream release of libde265 for which I just updated the packaging on Alioth: http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-multimedia/libde265.git/ Could somebody please review my changes and upload the new package if all is fine? Thanks and best regards, Joachim ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: New version of libde265 available for upload
Hi Sebastian, On 16.09.2014 17:46, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: [...] Thank you for updating the package. Here are remarks: thanks for the feedback. * Please do not override binary-without-manpage from lintian. They are valid warnings. Overrides are there if lintian reports false postives. Ok, removed the override. I was assuming as the binaries are just examples, they will probably never get man-pages. * Please update the paragraph documenting libde265/md5.c in debian/copyright to use libde265/md5.cc. Changed, already missed that in the last release. * You can use (optional|c++|regex)^std::vectorint, std::allocatorint ::.*@Base$ 0.8 in the symbols file instead of listing all optional symbols that are generated from std::vectorint. Nice, didn't know about that - changed it. Please check the latest packaging changes and upload if all is fine. Thanks and best regards, Joachim ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: New version of libde265 available for upload
Hi Sebastian, On 16.09.2014 19:33, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: Thanks, uploaded! thanks for uploading. Joachim ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: New version of libde265 available for upload
Hi Sebastian, On 11.01.2016 17:44, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > Thanks for the update. I pushed some changes to switch to automatic dbg > packages. thanks. > The build currently contains [...] > I suspect the symbol file needs an update for the new C++11 std::string > implementation, i.e. std::basic_string needs to be changed to > std::__cxx11::basic_string. And the same for std::basic_stringbuf. I just updated the symbols file and don't get any output from "dpkg-gensymbols" now. Regards, Joachim signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
New version of libde265 available for upload
Hi all, there is a bugfix release of libde265 for which I just updated the packaging on Alioth: http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-multimedia/libde265.git/ Could somebody please review my changes and upload the new package if all is fine? Thanks and best regards, Joachim signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#803834: libde265: FTBFS with FFmpeg 2.9
Hi Andreas, On 08.01.2016 00:08, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote: > Dear Maintainer, > > the next version of FFmpeg is planned to be released this month > (and it might be called 3.0 instead of 2.9). > > Since I haven't heard back from you during the past two month > I'm wondering what the status of this bug is: > * Are you aware of the patch I provided? > * Do you plan an upload soon? > * Is upstream aware of the problem? > > If this bug isn't fixed soon, it will become release critical and > thus the package will either get NMUed or removed from testing. thanks for the heads-up. I just pushed your patch to the packaging and notified pkg-multimedia-maintainers to build a new version of the package. Reported upstream as https://github.com/strukturag/libde265/pull/133 Regards, Joachim ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
RFS: libheif/0.0.1+20180124133753+git68fb4fe-1 [ITP: #888278]
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist (CC'ing pkg-multimedia-maintainers as the package is a image codec and Alessio and Sebastian who sponsored another package from me) Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "libheif" We are planning to release version 1.0.0 sometime next week, so I am looking for some early feedback from a packaging perspective to see if we need to change something in the upstream code to make packaging better / easier. The final RFS will be updated for the 1.0.0 release. * Package name: libheif Version : 0.0.1+20180124133753+git68fb4fe-1 Upstream Author : struktur AG <opensou...@struktur.de> * URL : https://github.com/strukturag/libheif * License : LGPL (library), GPL (example applications) Section : libs It builds those binary packages: libheif-0 - ISO/IEC 23008-12:2017 HEIF file format decoder. libheif-dev - ISO/IEC 23008-12:2017 HEIF file format decoder - development file libheif-examples - ISO/IEC 23008-12:2017 HEIF file format decoder - examples To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/libheif Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libh/libheif/libheif_0.0.1+20180124133753+git68fb4fe-1.dsc More information about libheif can be obtained from https://github.com/strukturag/libheif. Thanks and best regards, Joachim Bauch signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Bug#888288: RFS: libheif/0.0.1+20180124133753+git68fb4fe-1 [ITP: #888278]
Hi Sebastian, thanks for your feedback, I uploaded a new version to mentors: https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libh/libheif/libheif_0.0.1+20180206084258+git9d8f256-1.dsc Additional comments see below. On 03.02.2018 14:47, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > That fails to build: > > | g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -Wdate-time -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -I../src -g > -O2 > -fdebug-prefix-map=/<>/libheif-0.0.1+20180124133753+git68fb4fe=. > -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat -Werror=format-security -Wall -Werror > -Wsign-compare -Wconversion -Wno-sign-conversion -Wno-error=conversion -c -o > heif_info-heif_info.o `test -f 'heif_info.cc' || echo './'`heif_info.cc > | encoder_png.cc: In member function 'virtual bool PngEncoder::Encode(const > heif_image_handle*, const heif_image*, const string&)': > | encoder_png.cc:56:62: error: 'strerror' was not declared in this scope > | fprintf(stderr, "Can't open %s: %s\n", filename.c_str(), > strerror(errno)); > | ^~~~ > | encoder_png.cc:56:62: note: suggested alternative: 'perror' > | fprintf(stderr, "Can't open %s: %s\n", filename.c_str(), > strerror(errno)); > | ^~~~ > | perror > | Makefile:553: recipe for target 'heif_convert-encoder_png.o' failed Interesting, on Ubuntu the "string.h" seems to get pulled in by some other header and it compiles fine. Anyway, this is fixed upstream and I verified by building the package on sid. > Some other issues: > > * The library package should be named based on the SONAME, so that would be > libheif1. Changed to "libheif-1", or should the name be without the dash? > * Current Standards-Version is 4.1.3. Changed, however the lintian on mentors now complains that the version is too new: "newer-standards-version 4.1.3 (current is 3.9.8)" > * If you bump debhelper compatibility to 10 or 11, you can drop the explicit > --with autreconf and --parallel in d/rules. You could also drop > dh-autoreconf > from Build-Depends. Nice, I bumped the compatibility to 10 in the updated package. If everything looks good from a packaging side now, we will release 1.0.0 shortly and I will update the package with the release. Thanks again and best regards, Joachim signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Bug#888288: RFS: libheif/0.0.1+20180124133753+git68fb4fe-1 [ITP: #888278]
Hi IOhannes, On 06.02.2018 23:21, IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) wrote: > On 02/06/2018 10:21 AM, Joachim Bauch wrote: >> Hi Sebastian, >> >> thanks for your feedback, I uploaded a new version to mentors: >> https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libh/libheif/libheif_0.0.1+20180206084258+git9d8f256-1.dsc >> >> Additional comments see below. >> >> On 03.02.2018 14:47, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: >>> That fails to build: > [...] >> >> Interesting, on Ubuntu the "string.h" seems to get pulled in by some >> other header and it compiles fine. > > well, in general "you" should explicitely include headers for the > functions you need, rather than relying on "some other" header to do > that for you - that other header might have required > internally but a newer version might have a different private > implementation that allowed them to drop the include... yeah, I'm aware of that and in other places was explicitly included. It was probably missed in this location due to insufficient testing - anway, it's already fixed. >>> Some other issues: >>> >>> * The library package should be named based on the SONAME, so that would be >>> libheif1. >> >> Changed to "libheif-1", or should the name be without the dash? > > the name should be "libheif1", without the dash. > (the dash is usually used if you want multiple major versions of a > library to be coinstallable, e.g. libheif1.0-2 and libheif3-1; urgh) I don't think this should be necessary and will update the name to "libheif1". >>> * Current Standards-Version is 4.1.3. >> >> Changed, however the lintian on mentors now complains that the version >> is too new: "newer-standards-version 4.1.3 (current is 3.9.8)" > > seems like you have an old lintian on your system. > (e.g. because you are building on a Debian/stretch machine in a > sid-chroot; and/or because your machine hasn't been updated in a while) The package is building / linting fine locally, it's the lintian on "mentors.debian.net" that reports the newer version. Thanks for your feedback and best regards, Joachim signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Bug#888288: RFS: libheif/0.0.1+20180124133753+git68fb4fe-1 [ITP: #888278]
Hi Sebastian, On 07.02.2018 09:38, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > with the package name changed to libheif1, the package looks good from my > perspective. One minor nitpick: please remove the dot at the end of the short > description of libheif1 and add something like "- shared library" at the end. > Also, in the long description add the customary "This package contains the > shared library." part at the end. thanks for your additional feedback, I uploaded a new package with your suggestions based on the finally released upstream 1.0.0 to mentors: https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libh/libheif/libheif_1.0.0-1.dsc Please let me know if there is anything else I should do to get this imported into Debian. Thanks and best regards, Joachim signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Bug#888288: RFS: libheif/0.0.1+20180124133753+git68fb4fe-1 [ITP: #888278]
Hi Sebastian, On 06.02.2018 10:21, Joachim Bauch wrote: > thanks for your feedback, I uploaded a new version to mentors: > https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libh/libheif/libheif_0.0.1+20180206084258+git9d8f256-1.dsc a new version based on feedback from IOhannes is available at https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libh/libheif/libheif_0.0.1+20180206084258+git9d8f256-2.dsc Changes: - renamed library package to "libheif1". Thanks and best regards, Joachim > Additional comments see below. > > On 03.02.2018 14:47, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: >> That fails to build: >> >> | g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -Wdate-time -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -I../src -g >> -O2 >> -fdebug-prefix-map=/<>/libheif-0.0.1+20180124133753+git68fb4fe=. >> -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat -Werror=format-security -Wall -Werror >> -Wsign-compare -Wconversion -Wno-sign-conversion -Wno-error=conversion -c -o >> heif_info-heif_info.o `test -f 'heif_info.cc' || echo './'`heif_info.cc >> | encoder_png.cc: In member function 'virtual bool PngEncoder::Encode(const >> heif_image_handle*, const heif_image*, const string&)': >> | encoder_png.cc:56:62: error: 'strerror' was not declared in this scope >> | fprintf(stderr, "Can't open %s: %s\n", filename.c_str(), >> strerror(errno)); >> | ^~~~ >> | encoder_png.cc:56:62: note: suggested alternative: 'perror' >> | fprintf(stderr, "Can't open %s: %s\n", filename.c_str(), >> strerror(errno)); >> | ^~~~ >> | perror >> | Makefile:553: recipe for target 'heif_convert-encoder_png.o' failed > > Interesting, on Ubuntu the "string.h" seems to get pulled in by some > other header and it compiles fine. Anyway, this is fixed upstream and > I verified by building the package on sid. > >> Some other issues: >> >> * The library package should be named based on the SONAME, so that would be >> libheif1. > > Changed to "libheif-1", or should the name be without the dash? > >> * Current Standards-Version is 4.1.3. > > Changed, however the lintian on mentors now complains that the version > is too new: "newer-standards-version 4.1.3 (current is 3.9.8)" > >> * If you bump debhelper compatibility to 10 or 11, you can drop the explicit >> --with autreconf and --parallel in d/rules. You could also drop >> dh-autoreconf >> from Build-Depends. > > Nice, I bumped the compatibility to 10 in the updated package. > > If everything looks good from a packaging side now, we will release > 1.0.0 shortly and I will update the package with the release. > > Thanks again and best regards, > Joachim > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Bug#888288: RFS: libheif/0.0.1+20180124133753+git68fb4fe-1 [ITP: #888278]
Hi Sebastian, On 13.02.2018 15:45, Joachim Bauch wrote: > On 07.02.2018 09:38, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: >> with the package name changed to libheif1, the package looks good from my >> perspective. One minor nitpick: please remove the dot at the end of the short >> description of libheif1 and add something like "- shared library" at the end. >> Also, in the long description add the customary "This package contains the >> shared library." part at the end. > > thanks for your additional feedback, I uploaded a new package with your > suggestions based on the finally released upstream 1.0.0 to mentors: > > https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libh/libheif/libheif_1.0.0-1.dsc > > Please let me know if there is anything else I should do to get this > imported into Debian. just checking if there is anything else I need to do to help move this forward. If you currently are too busy - no problem, I was just wondering if I missed any feedback. Thanks and best regards, Joachim signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
