[Pkg-octave-devel] [Pkg-octave-commit] [SCM] octave-communications branch, master, updated. 70ca29bea376fbc1971653436a83293c72f9ed96

[Ólafur Jens Sigurðsson]

On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 03:04:59PM +0200, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> * Ã?lafur Jens Å?igurðsson <ojsbug at gmail.com> [2009-06-05 10:08]:
> 
> > The following commit has been merged in the master branch:
> > commit 70ca29bea376fbc1971653436a83293c72f9ed96
> > Author: Ólafur Jens Śigurðsson <ojsbug at gmail.com>
> > Date:   Fri Jun 5 01:11:05 2009 +0000
> > 
> >     Added some fail checks to the rules file
> > 
> > diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
> > index 43accc2..52ff02c 100644
> > --- a/debian/changelog
> > +++ b/debian/changelog
> > @@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
> > +octave-communications (1.0.9-2) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
> > +
> > +  * Added some fail check to the rules file.
> > +
> > + -- Ólafur Jens Sigurðsson <ojsbug at gmail.com>  Fri, 05 Jun 2009 01:05:31 +0000
> 
> Why is this change necessary?

Well, I was talking to someone on #debian-devel and he mentioned this
and then I had a look at the policy
(http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s4.6) and they
mention this also so I thought this would be good to implement. I
don't know much about makefiles so this could be wrong, please correct
if it is.

> 
> Besides:
> 
> > --- a/debian/rules
> > +++ b/debian/rules
> > @@ -21,12 +21,12 @@ install/octave-$(pkg)-common:: install/octave-$(pkg)
> >  	# This will allow us to remove the code below if/when the package
> >  	# gets fixed upstream.
> >  	for f in $(wrongperm) ; do					\
> > -		[ -x $(pkgdir)/$$f ] && chmod -x $(pkgdir)/$$f ;	\
> > +		set -e && [ -x $(pkgdir)/$$f ] && chmod -x $(pkgdir)/$$f ;	\
> >  	done
> >  
> >  install/octave-$(pkg)::
> >  	# Remove unneeded doc sources
> > -	( cd $(archshr)/doc/octave-$(pkg) ;		\
> > +	( cd $(archshr)/doc/octave-$(pkg) &&		\
> >  	  for e in txi texi ; do  			\
> > -		[ -f comms.$$e ] && rm comms.$$e ;	\
> > +		set -e [ -f comms.$$e ] && rm comms.$$e ;	\
> >  	  done )
> 
> Why in the first change there is a "&&" after "set -e" and there is none in
> the second change?

I think that the policy is to use && instead of ; ... I just forgot
the && in the second change, will fix it if you agree.

Cheers

Oli