Re: ITS: scrotwm (already in Debian)
2011/11/10 Niels Thykier > On 2011-11-10 17:08, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:56:57PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> As the subject suggests I am willing to sponsor the package. :) > > > > I’m glad to hear that! > > > > Hi, > > >> But > >> before I do; have you considered enabling hardning flags in your > >> package? A basic example of how to do it can be seen the attached > patch[1]. > > > > Thanks for pointing that out. > > > > I’m looking at the documentation and at your patch, and I’m unsure > > about this bit > > > >%.so: %.c > > - $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -c -fpic -DPIC $+ -o $@ > > + $(CC) $(LDFLAGS) $(CFLAGS) -c -fpic -DPIC $+ -o $@ > > > > Are you positive $(LDFLAGS) is supposed to be passed to the compiler > > here? It is just creating an object file, so the linker should not > > be called by $(CC). > > > > I am indeed wrong. I assumed that the "%.so: %.c" rule implied it was a > shared library and completely overlooked the "-c" argument. > > > [...] > > > > I will patch the Makefile and send the patch upstream for inclusion in > > a future release. > > > >> Is there a reason that the binaries are compiled without > >> optimization[2]? As far as I can tell it is an oversight, because the > >> "osx" Makefile includes an "-O2" flag. However, if it is known to have > >> issues with optimization on Linux platforms, a comment about that would > >> be appreciated (bonus points for valid references to bugs against gcc > :P). > > > > It’s almost certainly an oversight. > > > >> [1] Strictly speaking the CFLAGS/LDFLAGS from should "overrule" the > >> upstream ones if there are conflicts. Fixing that is left as an > >> exercise to the reader. ;) > > > > Can’t think of a way of doing that without patching the Makefile. But > > then again, patching the Makefile is no big deal. > > > > If you are going to send a patch upstream anyway, you might as well make > it possible to insert user *FLAGS after the "upstream flags". ;) > > > Thanks for your input, I’ll let you know when I have an updated package > > ready for review. > > > > Looking forward to seeing it. :) > > ~Niels > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ebc3e60.5040...@thykier.net > > Oh this is really nice, i'm glad to finally see that you got a sponsor. :-)
Re: RFS: dwm
2011/9/1 Etienne Millon > * Jeremy Allard [110831 23:04]: > > And just for the curiosity, what you mean by left dh_make template? > > If the package doesn't need for exemple a post-install script, > > should-I delete it or (that's what I tought) I should keep it there > > but with nothing important in? I read all the maintainer guide, it's > > just that I want to do the best package. :-) > > If you don't need maintainer scripts, there are no files to provide. > Moreover, those ".ex" files are just examples, not only empty scripts. > > Most other templates are described by lintian warnings on : > http://mentors.debian.net/package/dwm > > The most important one is copyright, but your changelog and > README.source are also only templates, I believe. > > -- > Etienne Millon > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110901082237.ga28...@john.ssi.corp > > Ok I understand and thanks you VERY much for the advice. :-)
Re: RFS: dwm
2011/8/31 Etienne Millon > * Jeremy Allard [110831 07:32]: > > PS: I'm not really sure if it is te correct way to this. Please, correct > me > > if i'm wrong. I know that dwm is already present in main, but its oudated > > and I have no news from the maintainer that i contacted by email a week > ago. > > > > I would be thankfull if you could give me any advice on my package so i > can > > make it better. > > Kind regards, > > Hello, > > Dwm is indeed part of the archive. Contacting the maintainer was a > good idea (a wishlist bug could have been enough, too), but one week > is a very short amount of time. What you are trying to do (orphaning > the package #639657) could be considered "an aggressive takeover" :-) > > Another thing is that your source package does reuse the current one > at all (lintian complains about left dh_make templates). To hack on > packages, it's a better idea to start from the existing (that you can > obtain with apt-get source) and maybe to use a VCS helper such as > git-buildpackage ; that's what the maintainer is doing and you can see > his work on http://git.webconverger.org/?p=dwm . > > If you want to upgrade dwm, the best thing to do is probably to wait a > little more for an answer from the maintainer. In the meantime, you > can prepare a new version on top of his work, and submit that to him. > If you don't have more news, then you can consider looking for a > sponsor for a NMU. > > -- > Etienne Millon > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110831055826.ga3...@john.ssi.corp > > Ok, thanks very much for the answer, I should have wait more time before doing all the steps. Thanks for the other advice, I will work with the package that he already made next time. And just for the curiosity, what you mean by left dh_make template? If the package doesn't need for exemple a post-install script, should-I delete it or (that's what I tought) I should keep it there but with nothing important in? I read all the maintainer guide, it's just that I want to do the best package. :-) And by the way, I'm used to use slackbuilds to make packages for Slackware, dh_make and dpkg-buildpackage are pretty awesome compare to those. :)
RFS: dwm
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "dwm". * Package name: dwm Version : 5.9-1 * URL : http://www.dwm.suckless.org * License : MIT/X Consortium License Section : x11 It builds those binary packages: dwm - Dwm is a dynamic window manager To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/dwm Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dwm/dwm_5.9-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. PS: I'm not really sure if it is te correct way to this. Please, correct me if i'm wrong. I know that dwm is already present in main, but its oudated and I have no news from the maintainer that i contacted by email a week ago. I would be thankfull if you could give me any advice on my package so i can make it better. Kind regards, Jeremy Allard
