[Debian-med-packaging] Some questions about seq (Was: r11551 - in trunk/packages/seg/trunk/debian: . patches source)

Laszlo Kajan lkajan at rostlab.org
Thu Jul 5 13:37:36 UTC 2012


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello Andreas!

Your changes to debian/rules with dpkg-parsechangelog make the get-orig-source target not work as required by the policy [1]:

 This target fetches the most recent version of the original source package [...] and leaves it in the current directory.
 This target may be invoked in any directory [...]

(This was the reason why it was static in the first place.)

Now it works only when invoked from the dir that contains 'debian' (so it can find the changelog).

I understand your intention with the changes, but I want to follow the policy here (and be able to invoke the target in 'tarballs'). Therefore I
am reverting to a static $(ver)sion and $(pkg) solution.

Best regards,

Laszlo

[1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html

On 05/07/12 09:28, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Laszlo,
> 
> I have commited some cosmetic changes to your seq packaging.  Your change below
> triggers two questions to me:
> 
> On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 08:48:00PM +0000, Laszlo Kajan wrote:
>> Modified: trunk/packages/seg/trunk/debian/changelog
>> ===================================================================
>> --- trunk/packages/seg/trunk/debian/changelog	2012-07-04 19:27:02 UTC (rev 11550)
>> +++ trunk/packages/seg/trunk/debian/changelog	2012-07-04 20:47:59 UTC (rev 11551)
>> @@ -1,25 +1,6 @@
>> -lowcompseg (19973009.1) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
>> +seg (1994101801-1) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
> 
> 1. At some point in time there was a decision to choose a name
>    longer than only three letters (which is a bit weak regarding
>    potential name space pollution.
> 
>    I do not question your decision in principle but it would nice
>    to hear the motivation behind this step.
> 
> 2. I agree that versioning unversioned code is hard.  You decreased
>    the version number compared to the former choice and I also
>    wonder why.  Looking at the ftp download site the youngest file
>    is dated
> 
>      genwin.h	3.5 kB	6/20/00 2:00:00 AM
> 
>    So I would expect a versioning 20002006 rather than 199<something>.
>    Same as above:  You might have your reasons I do not question but
>    a short explanation might help letting other people know.
> 
>    Remark: I personally always use 0.0.YYYYMMDD version numbers if
>    there is some need to invent a date based version to be easily
>    able to increase the version once upstream might decide to switch
>    to real version numbers.  I admit in this case chances are low that
>    this will ever happen - I'm just mentioning it as some general
>    information.
> 
> Kind regards and thanks for your effort to enrich Debian with a while
> set of biological software
> 
>      Andreas.
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=B6Ke
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the Debian-med-packaging mailing list