On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 08:23:34PM +0000, Jose M Calhariz wrote: > On 03/01/16 13:21, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > > 43: override_dh_auto_install: > > 44: dh_auto_install > > 45: dh_install > > > > instead please override only dh_install, no need to override > > dh_auto_install. > > Not certain I have done the right thing here. But I tested and did not > change a thing.
yeah, it doesn't change the outcome, but it's 1) one line less in d/rules and 2) more correct. > >>> multiarchifying a lib can be hard. But I don't think this is going to > >>> be that hard. If I were you I'd just try to use dh_auto_configure > >>> instead of plain ./configure call, and bump the debhelper compat. > >>> See https://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/Implementation for some hints, > >>> note that that page has some outdated bits (but we all hate keeping docs > >>> up to date :( ) > >> Did I get it right? > > looks good to me. though I see there are files like > > ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/rep/rules.mk > > that might be used by other packages. > > but if that one is a makefile, why is it under /usr/lib ? > > > > I need to try a piuparts run, and see if everything is right. > > Since there are only two r-deps once this package is more ready I'll try > > to build them against this, to see if this multi-lib change affects > > them. > > And I intended to adopt that two r-deps. What should make it easier. Indeed, I'll probably double check this particular bit another day. Given that now librep16 is multiarch-able, you should add a 'Multi-Arch: same' field in d/control for it. > >>>>> * librep-dev.links => no, please. linking /usr/share/doc/<pkg> > >>>>> directory ain't nice at all, why is that in first place? > >> The file librep-dev.links is gone, but the links are still present. I > >> don't know why :-( > > those links are caused by the --link-doc option of dh_installdocs. > > well, I'm not a fan of --link-doc, I really see too little point in it, > > int this case you just save some kB, just gaining troubles. > > But give that the current state of librep is a mixed (every binary have > > linked docs to librep9, except rep-doc), I'll leave the choice to you. > > Your choises are: > > * remove --link-doc for rep-doc, then you can just go on > > * remove --link-doc altogether, then you need a bunch of .maintscript > > files (see dh_installdeb(1) and dpkg-maintscript-helper(1) > > I will do this. But need time to reread the docs. Moved to TODO file. I tried to do this, you can find attached a patch that seems to do this transition correctly. > >>>>> + I see there already are preinst snippet to remove the directory. my > >>>>> reaction to this is: wtf? it does so quite unconditionally and -.-' > >> I changed the maintscripts to something I think is more sane. > > I'm not sure what would be the idea behind librep16.preinst ? why do you > > remove the symlink of librep9 ? > > I haven't tried, but I think that directory goes away when deinstalling > > librep9? yes it does. So, can you explain why you did that? Something more: * d/copyright: + there are 3 spurious line on top, not adhering to DEP-5, also they are redundant. Please move Mikolaj email address to the debian/* stanza and remove the lines + umh, is the Upstream-Name really 'sawfish'? Isn't it 'rep'? * d/control: + vcs-field-not-canonical — please fix it * is there a way to fix debian-rules-ignores-make-clean-error ? -- regards, Mattia Rizzolo GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`. more about me: http://mapreri.org : :' : Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'` Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
