2011/6/11 Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk>: > On 11-06-11 at 03:07pm, Dan S wrote: >> It would be great if others can comment - anyone? > > I did a quick look (don't expect much involvement - am involved in too > much at the moment already, and have some deadlines in RL too).
Thanks very much for these comments. > This looks bad: > >> # The build system apparently can't handle this >> CXXFLAGS = > > That and the DEB_SCONS_OPTIONS above it seems to indicate that it does > not follow Debian Policy §4.9.1. Only a recommendation apparently, but I > am uncertain if that only is _how_ to do it (i.e. DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS > hinting) while the underlying mechanisms (e.g. ability to build without > optimizations or without stripping binaries) is a must. This is reasonable -- there's about to be a minor upstream release so I'll try and patch upstream (even though it's a debianny issue), to parse DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS. > The -doc package should probably suggest the main package. Similarly > for the editor plugin packages (suggestions are too weak to cause a > "domino effect" so are in my opinion best to declare explicitly). OK > Oh, and why do editor plugins recommend -doc package? Seems they are > tools to write code, not closely related to the documentation of the > tool, so should perhaps be lowered to a suggestion. I see your reasoning. Well, the documentation is not completely independent - the editor-plugins include "jump to the help for this command"-type features, and if the -doc is missing we get confused users asking why the help-feature is broken. My inclination is for Recommends here, for that reason - sounds OK? > And I guess main packages not suggest/recommend -doc package too. Sorry, what do you mean? You're saying perhaps that supercollider should Suggest supercollider-doc? That sounds sensible. > What is the most proper build-dependency for jack these days? Here it > is "libjack-dev (>= 0.100) | libjack-jackd2-dev", which as I believe is > not wrong but seem to recall can be satisfied by a simpler dependency. Ah right, the version 2 package is marked as "Provides: libjack-dev" so we can simplify the dependency to "libjack-dev (>= 0.100)". I remember there being a reason for keeping both - but it might have been for earlier versions, before that particular "Provides" was in place. > The clean rule does not fully cleanup. These files was left behind: > > common/.sconf_temp/ > common/.sconsign.dblite > common/config.log I don't see this behaviour. (The clean rule contains an explicit "rm -f common/.sconsign.dblite" so I'm not sure how it would happen.) Could you give me the full commands to reproduce please? > I will do an analysis on copyrights/licenses now - and hope not to find > anything controversial there.... Thanks Dan > Regards, > > - Jonas > > -- > * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt > * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ > > [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private > > _______________________________________________ > pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list > pkg-multimedia-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/banlktikopppjq-qyog_rk_zkzfazp85...@mail.gmail.com
