Re: calf package failed build

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting James Cowgill (2017-11-27 14:46:08)
> On 27/11/17 13:28, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > NB! I notice you bumped debhelper compatibility but did not mention why 
> > - please consider reverting that change unless you know of a concrete 
> > need for more modern debhelper version that is available in oldstable, 
> > as tightening makes backporting more complex.
> 
> Isn't debhelper 10 in oldstable-backports?

Possibly.  Which makes it posible but - as is my point - more 
complicated to backport, as it then is limited to backporting to 
environments including oldstable-backports.

Please note that I do not talk only about backporting to the 
semi-official Debian backports.debian.org, but more generally about 
backports.

 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private


signature.asc
Description: 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: calf package failed build

[Jaromír Mikeš]

2017-11-27 14:28 GMT+01:00 Jonas Smedegaard :

> Quoting IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) (2017-11-27 13:55:50)
> > On 2017-11-27 11:26, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
> >> while I started work on calf package it failed to build :(
> >> Any idea what is wrong? I am not very familiar with cdbs.
>
> From a brief look, problem seems to be related to refreshing autotools.
>
> Calf packaging deliberately avoids using dh-autoreconf, because that
> tool does (or did, last I check) cleanup without restoring original
> files (just removing them) which does not play nice with some styles of
> git-based package maintenance (with git-buildpackage used with caff you
> will need to use either --git-ignore-new or --git-export, either of
> which risk masquerading other packaging problems).
>
>
> Great with additional maintainers, Jaromír!  Good that you bring up the
> trouble you ran into.
>
> NB! I notice you bumped debhelper compatibility but did not mention why
> - please consider reverting that change unless you know of a concrete
> need for more modern debhelper version that is available in oldstable,
> as tightening makes backporting more complex.
>

​Ok reverted


> I will try take some time to look at calf packaging, including limiting
> its use of CDBS.  I do not feel ready yet to abandon CDBS, so doing that
> for Calf means alienating me from the packaging.  I am (mildly but) not
> strongly against that, just mentioning as a different view on the issue
> compared to IOhannes' view.
>

​I wouldn't switch to short_dh without asking others uploaders especially
if I know that you prefer CDBS strongly.
I will let fixing this on you than.

best regards

mira
___
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: calf package failed build

[James Cowgill]

Hi,

On 27/11/17 13:28, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> NB! I notice you bumped debhelper compatibility but did not mention why 
> - please consider reverting that change unless you know of a concrete 
> need for more modern debhelper version that is available in oldstable, 
> as tightening makes backporting more complex.

Isn't debhelper 10 in oldstable-backports?

James



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: calf package failed build

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) (2017-11-27 13:55:50)
> On 2017-11-27 11:26, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
>> while I started work on calf package it failed to build :(
>> Any idea what is wrong? I am not very familiar with cdbs.

From a brief look, problem seems to be related to refreshing autotools.

Calf packaging deliberately avoids using dh-autoreconf, because that 
tool does (or did, last I check) cleanup without restoring original 
files (just removing them) which does not play nice with some styles of 
git-based package maintenance (with git-buildpackage used with caff you 
will need to use either --git-ignore-new or --git-export, either of 
which risk masquerading other packaging problems).


> i'm not an uploader of calf, but used CDBS for most of my packages in
> the past.
> however, these days CDBS provides less and less features compared to 
> dh - so i think a switch to dh should be considered if it makes 
> packaging significantly easier for those involved (rumour has it that 
> even *the* CDBS guy switches to dh (for some packages) - or at least 
> thinks about it...;-))
> 
> for the packages i was involved, the main cdbs features have been:
> - licensecheck
> - build multiple flavours
> 
> the first feature has become obsoleted by the "licensecheck" package
> which allows to write a single licensecheck rule in d/rules for any
> packaging helper.

Licensecheck does not yet fully replace the CDBS wrapper.  When it does 
(or when another wrapper independent from CDBS gts available) then 
indeed that is one less reason to stick to CDBS.


> afaict, the 2nd feature still mandates cdbs (unless you like to do
> things manually all the way).
> 
> since calf doesn't build multiple flavours, i see little reason to not 
> switch.

A reason not to switch is familiarity with current packaging style among 
those involved in maintaining the package.

Great with additional maintainers, Jaromír!  Good that you bring up the 
trouble you ran into.

NB! I notice you bumped debhelper compatibility but did not mention why 
- please consider reverting that change unless you know of a concrete 
need for more modern debhelper version that is available in oldstable, 
as tightening makes backporting more complex.

Thanks for the reflections on CDBS in general, IOhannes!

I will try take some time to look at calf packaging, including limiting 
its use of CDBS.  I do not feel ready yet to abandon CDBS, so doing that 
for Calf means alienating me from the packaging.  I am (mildly but) not 
strongly against that, just mentioning as a different view on the issue 
compared to IOhannes' view.

 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private


signature.asc
Description: 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: calf package failed build

[Debian/GNU]

On 2017-11-27 11:26, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> while I started work on calf package it failed to build :(
> Any idea what is wrong? I am not very familiar with cdbs.
> 


i'm not an uploader of calf, but used CDBS for most of my packages in
the past.
however, these days CDBS provides less and less features compared to dh
- so i think a switch to dh should be considered if it makes packaging
significantly easier for those involved (rumour has it that even *the*
CDBS guy switches to dh (for some packages) - or at least thinks about
it...;-))

for the packages i was involved, the main cdbs features have been:
- licensecheck
- build multiple flavours

the first feature has become obsoleted by the "licensecheck" package
which allows to write a single licensecheck rule in d/rules for any
packaging helper.
afaict, the 2nd feature still mandates cdbs (unless you like to do
things manually all the way).

since calf doesn't build multiple flavours, i see little reason to not
switch.

fgasmdr
IOhannes

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

calf package failed build

[Jaromír Mikeš]

Hi,

while I started work on calf package it failed to build :(
Any idea what is wrong? I am not very familiar with cdbs.

mkdir -p "debian/upstream-cruft"
mv "calf.desktop" "debian/upstream-cruft/calf.desktop";  mv "configure"
"debian/upstream-cruft/configure"; mv "Makefile.in"
"debian/upstream-cruft/Makefile.in";  mv "gui/Makefile.in"
"debian/upstream-cruft/gui/Makefile.in";  mv
"gui/icons/LV2/Makefile.in"
"debian/upstream-cruft/gui/icons/LV2/Makefile.in";  mv
"icons/Makefile.in" "debian/upstream-cruft/icons/Makefile.in";  mv
"src/Makefile.in" "debian/upstream-cruft/src/Makefile.in";  mv
"src/calf/Makefile.in" "debian/upstream-cruft/src/calf/Makefile.in";
mv "aclocal.m4" "debian/upstream-cruft/aclocal.m4";  mv "config.guess"
"debian/upstream-cruft/config.guess";  mv "config.sub"
"debian/upstream-cruft/config.sub";  mv "compile"
"debian/upstream-cruft/compile";  mv "config.h.in"
"debian/upstream-cruft/config.h.in";  mv "depcomp"
"debian/upstream-cruft/depcomp";  mv "install-sh"
"debian/upstream-cruft/install-sh";  mv "ltmain.sh"
"debian/upstream-cruft/ltmain.sh";  mv "missing"
"debian/upstream-cruft/missing";
touch debian/stamp-upstream-cruft
set -e;
set -e;
CDBS WARNING:  DEB_MAKE_CHECK_TARGET unset, not running checks
/usr/bin/make -C . install DESTDIR=/build/calf-0.90.0/debian/calf-plugins/
make[1]: Entering directory '/build/calf-0.90.0'
CDPATH="${ZSH_VERSION+.}:" && cd . && /bin/bash /build/calf-0.90.0/missing
aclocal-1.15
/bin/bash: /build/calf-0.90.0/missing: No such file or directory
Makefile:436: recipe for target 'aclocal.m4' failed
make[1]: *** [aclocal.m4] Error 127
make[1]: Leaving directory '/build/calf-0.90.0'
/usr/share/cdbs/1/class/makefile.mk:103: recipe for target
'debian/stamp-makefile-install' failed
make: *** [debian/stamp-makefile-install] Error 2
dpkg-buildpackage: error: fakeroot debian/rules binary subprocess returned
exit status 2

best regrads

mira
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers