2011/7/13 Thomas Goirand <[email protected]>: > On 07/13/2011 11:05 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: >> Excerpts from Thomas Goirand's message of Wed Jul 13 06:06:36 -0700 2011: >>> On 07/13/2011 08:00 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: >>>> I just tried building the 0.8.4-5 package with minimal rules and 3.0 quilt, >>>> and it built with a couple of extra files (.install files to put the files >>>> in the right place). It also uses dh_autoreconf successfully. See attached >>>> patch. >>> >>> Why did you remove my use of a build folder? It was working perfectly! >> >> Why do you feel a need to use a build folder? > > Because that's the most easy way to not touch any files of upstream, and > because it did work perfectly. Because dh_autoreconf has proven to be > failing in many cases, and that my system has no way break. Note that > this is the type of build system that many packages in Debian are using. > For example: Xen, the kernel, and so on. > >>> You are also removing the patch that does: >>> >>> - CFLAGS="-O20 -ffast-math -D_REENTRANT -fsigned-char >>> std=gnu99" >>> - PROFILE="-pg -g -O20 -ffast-math -D_REENTRANT >>> fsigned-char -std=gnu99";; >>> + CFLAGS="-D_REENTRANT -fsigned-char -std=gnu99" >>> + PROFILE="-pg -g -D_REENTRANT -fsigned-char std=gnu99";; >>> >> >> I renamed it. Its re-added later with .patch instead of .dpatch as it is >> no longer a dpatch, but a quilt patch. > > With all the respect, I don't see why you are wasting your time changing > things that worked. If you want to take over the package completely, and > rewrite things from scratch, ok, but not now. > >>> (and same for the configure) Why? It's 100% needed!!! >>> >> >> dh_autoreconf handles the config.sub/config.guess patches that you had >> embedded in the debian package. > > This is a mistake in the Git manipulation, which I didn't have time to > fix. As these files are anyway overwritten by the build process which > takes them from /usr/share, I thought I would fix that later. > > You could remove the diff easily. I just had no time to work on that. > >> cd $(BUILD_DIR) && CFLAGS="$(CFLAGS)" ./configure >> --host=$(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE) --build=$(DEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE) --prefix=/usr >> --mandir=\$${prefix}/share/man --infodir=\$${prefix}/share/info >> >> I'm not sure what this does that debhelper does not do. The resulting >> .debs are *identical* as far as I can tell. >> >>> With what I did, dh_autoreconf isn't needed anymore. dh_autoreconf is >>> overly complicated, and it's nice to be able to avoid it. >> >> I disagree whole heartedly. dh_autoreconf is well tested and solves the >> exact problem that you are solving by manually patching files in the >> upstream portion of the package. > > Again, if you are talking about the config.{sub,guess}, it's just that I > had no time to fix an issue that appeared when not using the build folder. > >> The idea is to make the package more maintainable. > > IMHO, you are doing the exact opposite thing here.
Hi! Sorry but I disagree, in my opinion the simplest is the easiest way. But I will not enter further into this discussion. I will try to fix bugs and I will fix them I will send you patches. I attach a patch debdiff for #633484, I tried it with all versions mentioned in bug from snapshot.debian.org and it works fine. Also I tried to upgrade from squeeze and it works fine too. I attach the debdiff to the bug too. Regards, >> The excellent >> stuff you did in debian/rules has been superseded by debhelper now. > > What do you mean? Are you talking about dh short style? Eg: > > %: > dh $@ > > ??? > > If so, *NO*. It's not AT ALL superseded. Read the recent debian-mentor@ > thread about it (search for Nitpicking). It's a different style, but > it's not deprecating the other one. > >> libdbi doesn't seem to be special in any regard except the patch to the >> build flags which is appropriately in debian/patches. So why would you >> want to have such a long explicit rules file? > > It's not simplifying to change something that has proven to be working, > especially when things are currently broken and I'm asking help to fix them. > >> You have stated a few >> times that you don't have time for such things. I'm hoping to reduce >> the burden is all. > > Don't. Just fix the RC bugs, nothing more, nothing less. You're not > reducing the burden, you are increasing it. > > If you really want to help, write a minimalistic patch for both #599127 > (in the Squeeze branch of the Git) and fix and test for #633484. Don't > do anything else, and don't write to me about another change. Also, have > a look why the postgress test suite doesn't work anymore for > libdbi-driver in SID. > >> Take it or leave it > > I leave it, because now isn't the time to change things. Now is the time > to fix the open RC bugs, and upload a package that works as other are > expecting, and also fix the issue in Debian stable. I regret to say it, > but having to write back to you about it wastes my (currently quite) > limited time. Sorry to be very direct here, I hope you don't take it > badly, as I enjoyed a lot the hacking we did together previously on libdbi. > >> but this would also simplify merges and syncs with >> Ubuntu so I'm hoping you'll take it. :) > > Feel free to do such changes *later*. :) > Also, I regret to say it: I wont care about Ubuntu anymore, I'm focusing > on Debian. I've learned it the hard way, but Debian isn't Ubuntu, and we > shouldn't accept such arguments, it's simply not a valid one. > > Cheers, > > Thomas > -- Angel Abad [email protected] | [email protected] | [email protected] http://www.pastelero.net FPR: EBF6 080D 59D4 008A DF47 00D4 098D AE47 EE3B C279 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAHV-TD60U-h09hx+q332XY+wpvrP0A5tJ5U_e=htbu5mdjz...@mail.gmail.com
