On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 07:47:57AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > I'd be very happy if somebody might have a look at biococoa.
Hi Andreas -- there are some serious issues with it. GNUstep frameworks are packaged like classic shared libraries (that's what they are, in fact), i.e. the biococoa source package should build the binary packages libbiococoa2 and libbiococoa-dev. You don't need the Replaces/Conflicts/Provides: biococoa.app -- sequenceconverter.app would just build-depend on libbiococoa-dev and end up depending on libbiococoa2. If you strongly care about upgrades, sequenceconverter.app could build also a dummy transitional package biococoa.app that depends on sequenceconverter.app (to be dropped after Squeeze). If you don't mind, I can provide a patch for that plus some other fixes that make the package compliant to the (still unwritten) Debian GNUstep policy. Note that there is a GNUstep transition pending (we are currently waiting for the ffmpeg and poppler transitions), so it would be great if you upload only when it finishes. Also, one upstream fix is needed: the top-level GNUmakefile should contain the following line: LIBRARIES_DEPEND_UPON += $(OBJC_LIBS) $(FND_LIBS) to actually link against libobjc and libgnustep-base. If you want to know the harm this causes for GNUstep transitions, see this subthread: http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2009/03/msg00109.html If you can push this upstream and a new release is pending, that would be great. Otherwise, please tell me what patch system do you prefer. Thanks! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
