Hey, I think we've encountered each other some while ago in a discussion with mhatta about repackaging abiword using a git repository (which seems to have died).
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 02:45:23PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Just adding the configure option --enable-libabiword is not sufficient > for official Debian packaging, as the resulting library is too > simplisticly built, not handling -fPIC flags and recompiling without > -fPIC for a static .a file as required by Debian Policy §10.2. > > Upstream seems to be aware of this - the file > src/wp/main/unix/GNUmakefile.am contains the following note: > [...] Note that upstream doesn't track ABI changes through SONAME, which would further complicate the packaging of libabiword. > After private conversations with Masayuki Hatta primo 2009 I started > work on solving this. It is a big process as it also includes > repackaging Abiword to not use the old and difficult to maintain > tarball-in-tarball packaging design. Also, the work on this has stalled > since march due to other major packaging tasks of mine. > > The current work-in-progress code is at > git://git.debian.org/git/collab-maint/abiword.git (and other parts of > the repackaged abiword package which needs to be ready too before > releasing is at .../abiword-docs, .../abiword-extras and > .../abiword-plugins). > > help with this major process is much appreciated. As a result of the mentioned discussion, I did some packaging work too in July 2009, starting the repository from scratch, following some of the various git packaging recommendations. Part of this is using topgit instead of dpatch. I think 2.7.6 (with which I started packaging from scratch) is in a somewhat working stage in my repo, and after mhatta and joshk seem to have lost interest (see also debian bug #548365), I intended to give packaging 2.8.0 a try from what I have with 2.7.6 when it comes out the next days. Now you've stepped up to the plan again ;-) and I want to spare us duplicate efforts. Note that upstream has included -plugins in the main tarball since 2.7.2, so my repository already accounts for that. My proposal is that I work on 2.8.0 off my repository, but merging in some of your changes (such as -Wl,--as-needed). I'd then let you have it for inspection and polishing. What do you think? What did you intend to do about libabiword, as upstream doesn't set a SONAME, but Debian requires a changing package name (policy 8.1)? Use libtool's -release flag instead (see libtool.info), and name both library and package "libabiword-2.8.0"? Kind regards, Patrik
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
