On 24/04/16 18:30, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 05:56:00PM +0200, Emmanuel Promayon wrote: > I checked Gianfranco's experimental branch and his work is great! > There is few build-depend packages that can be removed (and I noticed > the problem with the pixmaps), but this would be my pleasure to fix > that very soon.cool! If you could fine some minutes to trimmer the build-deps, etc would be awesome.
I managed to do some work on polishing the package, and once Gianfranco has agree, I will pull everything to the "experimental" branch.
From there I am not quite sure how to ask for an upload using the "experimental" branch (or should experimental be first merged to master?)
Thanks to Gianfranco tip, I used gbp buildpackage --git-debian-branch=experimental --git-ignore-newI used a docker sid image (which might not be the best, but was at hand on my machine)... and the packages were build. All the 441 post-build tests passed as well. I also updated the autopkgtest script, and it should work as well (although I could not run adt-run or puiparts in docker)
Lintian still gives two types of warnings (repeated multiple times): 1) libcamitk4-data: package-contains-timestamped-gzipFor these ones, I think the best is to redo the gzip upstream (and therefore wait for the next upstream to clean this)
2) debug-file-with-no-debug-symbols for all *-dbgsym packageFor this one, I am a bit puzzled. I am not sure at all what causes this error. Is it because the package is build using the "--builddirectory" option:
dh $@ --builddirectory=camitk-build and all the .debug files end up in another (non default) directory?Note: I tried to use dh $@ with the --parallel option in d/r, but gbp buildpackage seemed oblivious to it.
> I agree that the display bug, although a priority for upstream, > should not delay any debian cleaning up. everything started by wanting to remove libpng12. And then we noticed in how such a bad state unstable was wrt cruft. For some reason or the other, camitk is entangled in *all* of them; we have a pad where we are tracking everything, and camitk is on all the sections :\
Wooah... No pressure then!Your explanation has accelerated the process and put this packaging task on top of my urgent task list... Hope this will help remove camitk from the bad books...
> Therefore, I hereby declare that what Gianfranco did is great and > blessed! Thanks you very much! > If Gianfranco and everyone else is ok with it (I did not have time to > check the packaging here), it would be great if it can be uploaded > directly in unstable. \o/ Great! One of us will get to it very soon :) (guess Gianfranco, as he did most/all of the work)
OK. I will wait to Gianfranco agreement before I pull my commits to the experimental branch (I asked him if he was ok with it).
> In the next few weeks, hopefully upstream 4.0.1 will solve the display > bug and I can polish the packaging. In the meantime I'll file a RC bug for it, so it'll stay out of testing, and all the involved parties can notice this version is partially not working.
Great! Thanks.
> Thanks you again all for your work, it is amazing how every time > there is something new to learn! There is still more ;)
:-)
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
