[to the list, again] -=| Giorgio Pioda, Tue, 29 May 2007 11:06:32 +0200 |=- > Damyan Ivanov ha scritto: > > While there, is there a need for that *three* changelog entries for > > 1.125-x? > > > > Why not simply change the version of the 1.108-1 entry and leave it > > as is, i.e. simply "initial release". Your package didn't hit > > Debian yet, so no need to explain the changes. > > You are right. Explanations are not needed, but I used uupdate and > then I have seen a couple of issues and corrected them repackaging > and using dch -i. I was a little bored of regenerating all the times > the debian tree with dh_make and copiing the needed files manually.
dh_make is to be run only *once* - when creating the package skeleton. Use uupdate when there is new upstream release, followed by 'dch' (without -i) documenting changes done to the packaging. After the package is uploaded, use 'dch -i' *once* to start new changelog entry. > > * I am uncertain, but aren't the checks for BOOST redundant as you > > have Build-Depends: libboost-regex-dev? I have no strong opinion > > about this, just wondering. > > Well, just to make it portable on etch is necessary! I can kick out Then write a comment in debian/rules what has to be changed for the etch backport. > this check but then I have to set a static liboost-regex-option=mt > (otherwise the package doesn't compile) and the source is not > compilable on etch (where libboost-regex-option='' is needed)... Tell > me what's your preference. I think, personally, that beiing etch > "young" we have to make the backport possible. My preference is that ./configure handles all this stuff, but maybe I am just daydreaming. -- dam JabberID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
