gcc vs clang
[cc me please] Hi there, I have a package stuck in sid because gcc-11 and above fails to compile what seems to be legit c++-11 code. Is it ok to switch to clang instead for the time being (with proper documentation in d/rules) ?
Re: gcc vs clang
AFAK GCC is the defacto standard in Debian. You may want to patch your project to be GCC-compatible.
Re: gcc vs clang
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 05:28:33PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > [cc me please] > > Hi there, > > I have a package stuck in sid because gcc-11 and above fails to > compile what seems to be legit c++-11 code. What's the package? > Is it ok to switch to clang instead for the time being (with proper > documentation in d/rules) ? > signature.asc Description: PGP signature
parse SPDX-License-Identifier to produce copyright file
Hi all, Does there exist a tool for Debian that will parse a package directory (its source files), extract the "SPDX-License-Identifier:" and produce something that would fit into a machine-readable debian/copyright file? Thanks Fab
Re: parse SPDX-License-Identifier to produce copyright file
Hi, > Does there exist a tool for Debian that will parse a package directory (its > source files), extract the "SPDX-License-Identifier:" and produce something > that would fit into a machine-readable debian/copyright file? AFAIK, the reuse tool (which also generates these annoying headers) can do that. At least, it has some sort of DEP-5 mode. -nik
Bug#1012196: buglist
Control: tags -1 -moreinfo > Hm... You did not answer where you have got the original from. > This file seems to be very different from d3.js in https://github.com/d3/d3/releases/download/v3.4.9/d3.zip I was quite sure to use exactly the file from this source. May be it was broken after the automatic reformating. However, I reformatted the original file by hand. > Also, plugins/playlistanalyzer/ext/LICENSE (BSD-3-clause) needs to be copyied to d/copyright. > > CC0-1.0 is availabe in /usr/share/common-licenses/CC0-1.0, so please reference this file instead of copying it verbosely > to d/copyright. Done > Please remove debian/readme as it does not contain additional info. How can I remove it? For now I just use an empty file, because without readme it won't build. > There are two problems with d/changelog: > > Please use the luzip665 name/email for the signature lines > because exaile is obviously not a natural person. > > The "Beta release" description is not true anymore. > Please just write "Reintroduce package (Closes: #785897)". Done > Your d/watch file does not work. You want to scan GitHub releases and not tags and fix the version regex. > Also, your orig tarball does not fit the released tar.gz because it has differences in pt.po. > Please test the download via uscan --download-current-version. Done One question: How should I use lintian locally? If I run it with the .changes-file or with the .deb it just outputs nothing. I'm running it on Debian unstable.
Bug#1012196: buglist
Control: tags -1 moreinfo On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 20:48:47 + =?UTF-8?Q?Andr=c3=a9_Flechs?= wrote: Control: tags -1 -moreinfo > Hm... You did not answer where you have got the original from. > This file seems to be very different from d3.js in https://github.com/d3/d3/releases/download/v3.4.9/d3.zip I was quite sure to use exactly the file from this source. May be it was broken after the automatic reformating. However, I reformatted the original file by hand. > Also, plugins/playlistanalyzer/ext/LICENSE (BSD-3-clause) needs to be copyied to d/copyright. Please also match the file in debian/missing-sources for that license. > CC0-1.0 is availabe in /usr/share/common-licenses/CC0-1.0, so please reference this file instead of copying it verbosely > to d/copyright. Done > Please remove debian/readme as it does not contain additional info. How can I remove it? For now I just use an empty file, because without readme it won't build. You have to delete it from debian/docs also, obviously. > There are two problems with d/changelog: > > Please use the luzip665 name/email for the signature lines > because exaile is obviously not a natural person. > > The "Beta release" description is not true anymore. > Please just write "Reintroduce package (Closes: #785897)". Done Please also close #1012202 (the ITP) with the changelog again, which got lost on the way. > Your d/watch file does not work. You want to scan GitHub releases and not tags and fix the version regex. > Also, your orig tarball does not fit the released tar.gz because it has differences in pt.po. > Please test the download via uscan --download-current-version. Done You have NOT tested the file with the given command. Please remove the orig tarball to test it. Hint: You are currently requesting a *-*.tar.gz file which worked for the beta but does not for the regular release. One question: How should I use lintian locally? If I run it with the .changes-file or with the .deb it just outputs nothing. I'm running it on Debian unstable. Maybe you do not have warnings/errors anymore? Just build the package and from the source dir run lintian -IE --pedantic to see come more messages.
Bug#1017875: RFS: blender-doc/3.2-1 [ITP] -- Blender Manual by the Blender Foundation
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 01:47:03AM +0300, Jonathan Rubenstein wrote: > * Package name: blender-doc >Version : 3.2-1 > blender-doc (3.2-1) unstable; urgency=medium > . >* Initial release. (Closes: #1006255) Hi! The package looks pretty good, save for copyright stuff. Alas, that's the least fun part of packaging, but one that needs to be done right at the start. I see for example blender_docs/tools_rst/retext.js having: license: MIT https://github.com/wooorm/retext/blob/master/LICENSE author: Titus Wormer http://wooorm.com According to licensecheck, there's also plenty of GPLed stuff. > I am currently having trouble with lintian reporting source-is-missing > because one of a file having very-long-line-length-in-source-file. I'm not > sure how to solve this issue while conforming to Debian Policy, and need > some help. It's not a minified file or otherwise "compiled" file, thus you can add a lintian override. > I'm sure this package needs a little bit of care as well in the control > file, but otherwise I have tested it many times and it works the way I > expect it, and as far as I know follows Debian Policy, but what do I know? Looks good to me otherwise, good work! Meow! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ You're alive. But that's just a phase. ⠈⠳⣄
