calf package failed build

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) (2017-11-27 13:55:50)
> On 2017-11-27 11:26, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
>> while I started work on calf package it failed to build :(
>> Any idea what is wrong? I am not very familiar with cdbs.

From a brief look, problem seems to be related to refreshing autotools.

Calf packaging deliberately avoids using dh-autoreconf, because that 
tool does (or did, last I check) cleanup without restoring original 
files (just removing them) which does not play nice with some styles of 
git-based package maintenance (with git-buildpackage used with caff you 
will need to use either --git-ignore-new or --git-export, either of 
which risk masquerading other packaging problems).


> i'm not an uploader of calf, but used CDBS for most of my packages in
> the past.
> however, these days CDBS provides less and less features compared to 
> dh - so i think a switch to dh should be considered if it makes 
> packaging significantly easier for those involved (rumour has it that 
> even *the* CDBS guy switches to dh (for some packages) - or at least 
> thinks about it...;-))
> 
> for the packages i was involved, the main cdbs features have been:
> - licensecheck
> - build multiple flavours
> 
> the first feature has become obsoleted by the "licensecheck" package
> which allows to write a single licensecheck rule in d/rules for any
> packaging helper.

Licensecheck does not yet fully replace the CDBS wrapper.  When it does 
(or when another wrapper independent from CDBS gts available) then 
indeed that is one less reason to stick to CDBS.


> afaict, the 2nd feature still mandates cdbs (unless you like to do
> things manually all the way).
> 
> since calf doesn't build multiple flavours, i see little reason to not 
> switch.

A reason not to switch is familiarity with current packaging style among 
those involved in maintaining the package.

Great with additional maintainers, Jaromír!  Good that you bring up the 
trouble you ran into.

NB! I notice you bumped debhelper compatibility but did not mention why 
- please consider reverting that change unless you know of a concrete 
need for more modern debhelper version that is available in oldstable, 
as tightening makes backporting more complex.

Thanks for the reflections on CDBS in general, IOhannes!

I will try take some time to look at calf packaging, including limiting 
its use of CDBS.  I do not feel ready yet to abandon CDBS, so doing that 
for Calf means alienating me from the packaging.  I am (mildly but) not 
strongly against that, just mentioning as a different view on the issue 
compared to IOhannes' view.

 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/attachments/20171127/8483b120/attachment.sig>