Dear Sean, Thank you very much for the review, indeed any help is appreciated!
> You should drop the libmrpt-dbg package, since we now have automatic > *-dbgsym binary package generation. Done (upstream). I wasn't aware of this change. In the past, I provided -dbg packages with a totally different meaning (very similar to those provided by wxWidgets, if you are familiar with them): they were another version of all libraries, compiled with -g and other flags that enabled many extra run-time checks. I dropped those packages because of the (what I understood) was the preferred meaning of -dbg packages in Debian. Now that those -dbg packages have been renamed to -dbgsym, do you think it may be a good idea to generate again those debug packages? I would be really thankful for any advice regarding "good practices" in this sense... > Why have you marked this RFS as "[ITA]"? It means "intent to adopt" but > you're already the maintainer. Right, it was a mistake. > Could you explain why you changed the package priority optional->extra? I did it back in January and can't find an extended description in the commit log about *why* I did it, but it was probably because of some Lintian error/warning regarding this part of the policy (2.5 Priorities): Packages must not depend on packages with lower priority values (excluding build-time dependencies). In order to ensure this, the priorities of one or more packages may need to be adjusted. I have switched it back to "optional" upstream and will try to re-regenerate all packages and run Lintian to see if that was the reason. > Unfortunately, it fails to build on my 32-bit machine; log attached. wow, that's really unexpected! It seems there is an error in one CMake module: CMake Error at /usr/share/cmake-3.5/Modules/TestBigEndian.cmake:104 (message): TEST_BIG_ENDIAN found no result! Will investigate if it's a real problem with cmake or with my scripts. Again, thank you very much for the help. Best, Jose Luis