On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 07:28:47PM -0400, Hubert Chan wrote: > Thanks for your feedback. I've packaged 0.91, and incorporated some > of your suggestions.
Good, I feel it is in quite good shape (and incidently 0.91 catches more user errors than 0.86). There are still a couple of things to look at, but that does not look like blockers for an upload. Just tell me if you'd like to make another pass before an official upload. I notice that you repacked the orig tarball. It is not necessary, you just have to the rename the upstream one, the directory namechange is not necessary. The doc-base file still refers to the pdf.gz file (heck, lintian should detect such things, as #196122 says - er, wait, linda does catch it ;). There is still an install-doc snippet in prerm. I am a bit concerned with the "checking for working fork... no" message from configure. config.log shows the following, which reveals a problem in the test itself, as expected. Looks like there are 2 problems: - HAVE_UNISTD_H is not defined in this context, although it was successfully tested for - stdlib.h was not included configure:6349: checking for working fork configure:6372: g++ -o conftest -g -Wall -O2 -I/usr/include/gc conftest.cc -lreadline -lm -lcurses -lfftw3 -lgccpp -lgc >&5 conftest.cc: In function 'int main()': conftest.cc:9: error: 'fork' was not declared in this scope conftest.cc:10: error: 'exit' was not declared in this scope conftest.cc:11: error: 'exit' was not declared in this scope configure:6375: $? = 1 configure: program exited with status 1 configure: failed program was: | /* By Ruediger Kuhlmann. */ | #include <sys/types.h> | #if HAVE_UNISTD_H | # include <unistd.h> | #endif | /* Some systems only have a dummy stub for fork() */ | int main () | { | if (fork() < 0) | exit (1); | exit (0); | } configure:6394: result: no Not sure it does any harm, but there is sure at least one problem with the AC_FUNC_FORK macro not taking care of stdlib.h, and a second one, possibly but not necessarily in configure.ac, about taking previous tests into account. The "(cached)" comment in "checking for working vfork... (cached) yes" also seems strange - no such previous was run before, maybe there is a variable-name error in the AC_FUNC_FORK stuff. Do you want to take a closer look at it ? Best regards, -- Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Debian-related: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Support Debian GNU/Linux: | Freedom, Power, Stability, Gratis http://ydirson.free.fr/ | Check <http://www.debian.org/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]