Re: How to handle a change in "Files-Excluded:" with gbp
> Good question; I'm surprised -v doesn't say. Does adding --debug help? It just gives a directory: doc/ but it contains several doc files and I thought I had removed the culprit (the doxygen doc of toulbar2). The --debug variant does help however. N: Running check: cruft on source:toulbar2/1.0.0+dfsg2-1 ... P: toulbar2 source: source-contains-prebuilt-doxygen-documentation doc/ N: N: The source tarball contains prebuilt doxygen documentation. This is N: usually left by mistake when generating the tarball without first N: cleaning the source directory. You may want to report this as an N: upstream bug, if there is no sign that this was intended. N: N: It is preferable to rebuild documentation directly from source. N: N: Severity: pedantic, Certainty: possible N: N: Check: cruft, Type: source N: N: Check script cruft for source:toulbar2/1.0.0+dfsg2-1 done (0.344s) So, I found the /usr/share/lintian/checks/cruft.pm that does the job and it looks for "doxygen.png" and "doxygen.sty" which I did not remove. I just removed the doc itself. I will exclude more in debian/copyrightand prepare a +dfsg3 version. > Meanwhile, please do double-check your doc-base handling; per > dh_installdocs(1), best practice is to give the files standardized names > and not attempt to list them in .install files. Ok. I just followed the debian wiki indicationsfor doc-base. I will dive in dh_installdocs(1) :-) Thomas
Re: How to handle a change in "Files-Excluded:" with gbp
Thomas Schiex writes: > Is there a way to know what file in the upstream tarball is generating > the message? Good question; I'm surprised -v doesn't say. Does adding --debug help? Meanwhile, please do double-check your doc-base handling; per dh_installdocs(1), best practice is to give the files standardized names and not attempt to list them in .install files. -- Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org) http://www.mit.edu/~amu/ | http://stuff.mit.edu/cgi/finger/?a...@monk.mit.edu
Re: How to handle a change in "Files-Excluded:" with gbp
Hello Aaron, hello everyone ! I have reached a state for the toulbar2 repo that is close to satisfy me. It generates two deb files (a binary and a doc package), the documentation is now decent and the examples are compressed in .txz. I'm still surprised by one lintian -EviI --pedantic message: source-contains-prebuilt-doxygen-documentation while I removed it from the archive using debian/copyright and uscan (and it did its job). Is there a way to know what file in the upstream tarball is generating the message? Kind regards Thomas
Re: How to handle a change in "Files-Excluded:" with gbp
Thanks Aaron, I did as advised and everything seems to be working properly. I now have 2 packages, with proper contents (well, I still need to compress examples). Will come back when everything looks fine to me. Thomas >> I: toulbar2: arch-dep-package-has-big-usr-share 4967kB 67% >> Is it tolerable? > Yes, but it would certainly be better to split out a -doc package. > >> Is it as simple as editing debian/control to describe two deb files and >> have a new debian/install file for the doc package? (I guess not :-/) > It's pretty straightforward, but not quite that simple. For one thing, > you'll want to rename all the files in debian/ specifically pertaining > to the main package to start with "toulbar2." for clarity. Also, please > note that destinations in .install files should always be directory > names, and that dh_installdocs will take care of doc-base files for you > if you name them according to the directions in its man page. > > If you have any heavyweight build dependencies that are necessary only > when building the main binary package, or only when building > documentation, it's best practice to split them out into > Build-Depends-Arch or Build-Depends-Indep, respectively. > > Finally, I'd recommend running debc (from the devscripts package) to get > an overview of each package's contents and metadata while you're working > on this setup. >
Re: How to handle a change in "Files-Excluded:" with gbp
Thomas Schiex writes: > Thanks Aaron, I should have thought about this :-) No problem; glad to have been of help! > I did and I now have 3 less lintian warnings, and I will push to salsa. Great. > I: toulbar2: arch-dep-package-has-big-usr-share 4967kB 67% > > Is it tolerable? Yes, but it would certainly be better to split out a -doc package. > Is it as simple as editing debian/control to describe two deb files and > have a new debian/install file for the doc package? (I guess not :-/) It's pretty straightforward, but not quite that simple. For one thing, you'll want to rename all the files in debian/ specifically pertaining to the main package to start with "toulbar2." for clarity. Also, please note that destinations in .install files should always be directory names, and that dh_installdocs will take care of doc-base files for you if you name them according to the directions in its man page. If you have any heavyweight build dependencies that are necessary only when building the main binary package, or only when building documentation, it's best practice to split them out into Build-Depends-Arch or Build-Depends-Indep, respectively. Finally, I'd recommend running debc (from the devscripts package) to get an overview of each package's contents and metadata while you're working on this setup. -- Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org) http://www.mit.edu/~amu/ | http://stuff.mit.edu/cgi/finger/?a...@monk.mit.edu
Re: How to handle a change in "Files-Excluded:" with gbp
Thanks Aaron, I should have thought about this :-) I did and I now have 3 less lintian warnings, and I will push to salsa. However now that I have improved documentation installation, I have a new lintian flag that pops up: I: toulbar2: arch-dep-package-has-big-usr-share 4967kB 67% Is it tolerable? If not, is there an "HOWTO/guide" on creating a doc package. Is it as simple as editing debian/control to describe two deb files and have a new debian/install file for the doc package? (I guess not :-/) Thomas Le 07/08/2018 à 23:06, Aaron M. Ucko a écrit : >> gbp:error: Upstream tag 'upstream/1.0.0+dfsg' already exists >> >> What would you do? > I would add a digit to the suffix, going to 1.0.0+dfsg2. > > Thanks for checking!
Re: How to handle a change in "Files-Excluded:" with gbp
Thomas Schiex writes: > gbp:error: Upstream tag 'upstream/1.0.0+dfsg' already exists > > What would you do? I would add a digit to the suffix, going to 1.0.0+dfsg2. Thanks for checking! -- Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org) http://www.mit.edu/~amu/ | http://stuff.mit.edu/cgi/finger/?a...@monk.mit.edu
