RFS: autotrace (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.31.1-15 of my package "autotrace". It builds these binary packages: autotrace - bitmap to vector graphics converter libautotrace-dev - bitmap to vector graphics converter, development files libautotrace3 - bitmap to vector graphics converter, shared library files The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 525919 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/autotrace - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/autotrace/autotrace_0.31.1-15.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Tony Palma -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
RFS: autotrace (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.31.1-15 of my package "autotrace". It builds these binary packages: autotrace - bitmap to vector graphics converter libautotrace-dev - bitmap to vector graphics converter, development files libautotrace3 - bitmap to vector graphics converter, shared library files The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 525919 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/autotrace - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/autotrace/autotrace_0.31.1-15.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Tony Palma -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
RFS: autotrace (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.31.1-16 of my package "autotrace". It builds these binary packages: autotrace - bitmap to vector graphics converter libautotrace-dev - bitmap to vector graphics converter, development files libautotrace3 - bitmap to vector graphics converter, shared library files The package appears to be lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/autotrace - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/autotrace/autotrace_0.31.1-16.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. It's been a long time since the last revision. Kind regards Tony Palma -- .''`. Tony Palma. : :' : PGP/GPG Key ID: 258FFB1A `. `' `-Proudly running Debian GNU/Linux signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: autotrace (updated package)
Hi Edgar, On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 05:23:04AM -0500, Edgar Antonio Palma de la Cruz wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.31.1-16 > of my package "autotrace". > - dget > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/autotrace/autotrace_0.31.1-16.dsc Thanks for your work. Cleaning up is a good thing yet the oldpatches.patch looks like it catches more than it should: AUTHORS |2 Makefile.am |4 Makefile.in | 914 - README|2 aclocal.m4| 8966 +-- autotrace.1 |4 autotrace.h |4 autotrace.pc.in |4 config.h.in |3 configure |25257 +- configure.in | 91 curve.c |4 fit.c |3 ltmain.sh | 3665 +-- main.c| 10 output-pdf.c | 16 output-pstoedit.c |2 output-pstoedit.h |2 18 files changed, 28530 insertions(+), 10423 deletions(-) Especially the configure, aclocal.m4 and ltmain.sh look like a too large change. Can you see if really *ALL* of this is required and cut that patch down to a more readable size? If you want to you can also plit it apart into logical units with individual explanations why they are (still) needed. There may also be parts of this which still need to be pushed back upstream. Reviewing it in this shape is quite teadious however. And documenting even more so if they satisfy different motivations. In some respect it may even be more helpful to add dh-autoreconf (even though I quite dislike its use in general). Even more so when I see the old d/rules had pretty much a full autoreconf run as part of the default packaging which makes me guess this was causing the updates we now see in the diff making them totally irrelevant to the "bugfix" the original author had in mind. Thanks! -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: autotrace (updated package)
El Wed, 3 Aug 2011 23:49:53 +0200 Kilian Krause escribió: > Cleaning up is a good thing yet the oldpatches.patch looks like it > catches more than it should: > > AUTHORS |2 > Makefile.am |4 > Makefile.in | 914 - > README|2 > aclocal.m4| 8966 +-- > autotrace.1 |4 > autotrace.h |4 > autotrace.pc.in |4 > config.h.in |3 > configure |25257 > +- > configure.in | 91 curve.c |4 > fit.c |3 > ltmain.sh | 3665 +-- > main.c| 10 > output-pdf.c | 16 > output-pstoedit.c |2 > output-pstoedit.h |2 > 18 files changed, 28530 insertions(+), 10423 deletions(-) I split the oldpatches.patch(and then was removed) to make a patch-per-file and then I removed the changes in: ltmain.sh configure config.h.in Makefile.in The patch for this files was removed because when I use autoreconf it remove this files and use another files(the same but *new*) to build. There's a warn from lintian: W: autotrace source: ancient-libtool ltmain.sh 1.4.2 Should I override it? dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/autotrace/autotrace_0.31.1-16.dsc Sorry for delay. Thanks! -- .''`. Tony Palma. : :' : PGP/GPG Key ID: 258FFB1A `. `' identi.ca: xbytemx `-Debian GNU/Linux signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: autotrace (updated package)
Hi Tony, On Sun, 2011-08-07 at 20:25 -0500, Edgar Antonio Palma de la Cruz wrote: > El Wed, 3 Aug 2011 23:49:53 +0200 > Kilian Krause escribió: > > Cleaning up is a good thing yet the oldpatches.patch looks like it > > catches more than it should: > > > > AUTHORS |2 > > Makefile.am |4 > > Makefile.in | 914 - > > README|2 > > aclocal.m4| 8966 +-- > > autotrace.1 |4 > > autotrace.h |4 > > autotrace.pc.in |4 > > config.h.in |3 > > configure |25257 > > +- > > configure.in | 91 curve.c |4 > > fit.c |3 > > ltmain.sh | 3665 +-- > > main.c| 10 > > output-pdf.c | 16 > > output-pstoedit.c |2 > > output-pstoedit.h |2 > > 18 files changed, 28530 insertions(+), 10423 deletions(-) > I split the oldpatches.patch(and then was removed) to make a > patch-per-file and then I removed the changes in: > ltmain.sh > configure > config.h.in > Makefile.in > > The patch for this files was removed because when I use autoreconf > it remove this files and use another files(the same but *new*) to > build. Thanks! Still it looks like all of the patches you elaborately pieced apart do neither have a meaningful description what they do and why they are needed nor have any source (where they were taken from and who originally made them up) and comment whether they have already been pushed back upstream. To me it looks like there's a number of patches that aren't useful anymore: - If you're using autoreconf, are you sure debian/patches/aclocal.m4.patch is needed? - debian/patches/AUTHORS.patch is effectively a null edit. Moreover this is nothing Debian should decide on its own. - debian/patches/autotrace.h.patch looks pretty much like a null edit too. Why is this needed? - At least your patches: + debian/patches/autotrace.pc.in.patch + debian/patches/config.h.in.patch + debian/patches/configure.in.patch + debian/patches/curve.c.patch + debian/patches/fit.c.patch + debian/patches/main.c.patch + debian/patches/output-pdf.c.patch + debian/patches/output-pstoedit.c.patch + debian/patches/output-pstoedit.h.patch + debian/patches/README.patch sound like a pretty good idea to talk to upstream about. If that is not taken from upstream they should be informed. Please put verbose comments why they are needed and where taken from including the information whether they are forwarded back upstream. - debian/patches/configure.patch, debian/patches/ltmain.sh.patch, debian/patches/Makefile.in.patch can be omited with autoreconf I guess. - debian/patches/Makefile.am.patch would probably be a good candidate to revisit. Debian does not want to ship *.la files anymore. Having a look at the rest of the package: What exactly is debian/pstoedit.m4 supposed to do? In debian/rules you use autoreconf but not autotools-dev. Why? Moreover your clean target removed *dh-orig which is supposed to be done by autotools/autoreconf debhelpers. I guess you want to put sample.c into debian/clean and remove the override to let the automatic work correctly. More of a style hint than a requirement: --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man are default for dh_auto_configure. No need to add them. > There's a warn from lintian: > W: autotrace source: ancient-libtool ltmain.sh 1.4.2 > Should I override it? Well, you have a patch in debian/patches for that anyway. So you can both override this warning or just ignore it. The preferred would be if upstream could produce a fixed release with all the patches applied to move them out of Debian altogether. Thanks! -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: autotrace (updated package)
El Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:25:14 +0200 Kilian Krause escribió: > To me it looks like there's a number of patches that aren't useful > anymore: > - If you're using autoreconf, are you sure > debian/patches/aclocal.m4.patch is needed? This is no applied, is just for history. > - debian/patches/AUTHORS.patch is effectively a null edit. Moreover > this is nothing Debian should decide on its own. Unapplied now. > - debian/patches/autotrace.h.patch looks pretty much like a null edit > too. Why is this needed? It solves a old enum error http://bugs.debian.org/292246 > - At least your patches: > + debian/patches/autotrace.pc.in.patch > + debian/patches/config.h.in.patch > + debian/patches/configure.in.patch > + debian/patches/curve.c.patch > + debian/patches/fit.c.patch > + debian/patches/main.c.patch > + debian/patches/output-pdf.c.patch > + debian/patches/output-pstoedit.c.patch > + debian/patches/output-pstoedit.h.patch > + debian/patches/README.patch > sound like a pretty good idea to talk to upstream about. If that is > not taken from upstream they should be informed. Please put verbose > comments why they are needed and where taken from including the > information whether they are forwarded back upstream. Well the upstream was a little quiet the last few years(7) and there's no release since 9 years. Anyway I already sent a *ping*. > - debian/patches/configure.patch, debian/patches/ltmain.sh.patch, > debian/patches/Makefile.in.patch can be omited with autoreconf I > guess. As i said above, this are just for the record, not applied. > - debian/patches/Makefile.am.patch would probably be a good candidate > to revisit. Debian does not want to ship *.la files anymore. Well the .la files are managed via .install file. > Having a look at the rest of the package: > > What exactly is debian/pstoedit.m4 supposed to do? A time ago, it was used for aclocal. I removed because there's no need now. > In debian/rules you use autoreconf but not autotools-dev. Why? > Moreover your clean target removed *dh-orig which is supposed to be > done by autotools/autoreconf debhelpers. I guess you want to put > sample.c into debian/clean and remove the override to let the > automatic work correctly. I read on the man of dh-autoreconf that using this implicate the use of autotools-dev. Done the d/clean file and the *dh-orig remove. > More of a style hint than a requirement: --prefix=/usr > --mandir=/usr/share/man are default for dh_auto_configure. No need to > add them. :O done! > > There's a warn from lintian: > > W: autotrace source: ancient-libtool ltmain.sh 1.4.2 > > Should I override it? > > Well, you have a patch in debian/patches for that anyway. So you can > both override this warning or just ignore it. The preferred would be > if upstream could produce a fixed release with all the patches > applied to move them out of Debian altogether. I will ignore it. I added more info about the patches and the bugs(if exist) it solves. I intent to keep the patches only for historic, because when I switch from non-patch system to 3.0(quilt) source format what was changed before, but if this is the best way to switch and track(bugs mainly), I will removed. Thanks! -- .''`. Tony Palma. : :' : PGP/GPG Key ID: 258FFB1A `. `' identi.ca: xbytemx `-Debian GNU/Linux signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: autotrace (updated package)
Hi Tony, On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 06:23:39AM -0500, Edgar Antonio Palma de la Cruz wrote: > El Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:25:14 +0200 > Kilian Krause escribió: > > To me it looks like there's a number of patches that aren't useful > > anymore: > > - If you're using autoreconf, are you sure > > debian/patches/aclocal.m4.patch is needed? > This is no applied, is just for history. I guess this is what a VCS would do better than some loose files in the Debian package. They confuse especially a sponsor more than they seem to help IMHO. If you think they should be left there, you may want to mark them as UNUSED in both filename and header or just move them to some ATTIC directory under debian/patches. And just for the record, when rebuilding your package the following files are replaced due to the autoreconf anyway: Makefile.in aclocal.m4 autotrace.spec config.h.in configure install-sh ltmain.sh missing mkinstalldirs Thus there's no point in having a patch for them I'd say. [...] > Well the upstream was a little quiet the last few years(7) and there's > no release since 9 years. Anyway I already sent a *ping*. *shrug* This makes me wonder how useful this package is in Debian regarding having to support this for years to come in Debian stable. I'll make this your call to make, but if upstream is dead this effectively means you're now in charge to look after your package as if it were your own code I guess. This may sounds more drastical than it actually is (there's a whole Debian community to give you helping hands if you ask for it) but after all you should consider how large the user community still is and if it's not really better to move them over to a similar and still actively developed alternative (if possible). [...] After a long walk I'd say that except for the unused patches the package is now in a quite good shape and I hope you keep up the good work! Thus, built, signed, uploaded. Thanks for your help! -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
