Hi Andrei,
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 03:55:52PM +0200, Andrei Rozanski wrote:
> > > fb3ed2f5b9a313134a7abbffe23159b8f6fb4eb6)
> Sorry for that. This time, it seems to finish without issues (commit
> 72f4e2a0bd44309a33c37f9ab9261d22cf52979c).
No need to sorry about this - I was just somehow communicating the fact
that if I've thought in the past that I did only a simple change that
will not break anything sometimes it was broken anyway. ;-) So just
rebuild before uploading. ;-)
> > debian/`dh_listpackages`/usr/lib/${DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH}/amplsolver.a
> >
> > where it was moved before. ;-)
>
> I gave it a try using make variables -
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/ampl-netlib-solvers/-/blob/master/debian/rules#L6
>
> and
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/ampl-netlib-solvers/-/blob/master/debian/rules#L33
>
> However I am not sure if it is ok/good practice.
Its definitely OK. I do not think whether there is any "good practice" to
work around broken upstream Makefiles.
> > this will fail on all other build architectures than amd64 under Linux.
> > May be its sensible to replace it simply by
> >
> > sys.*/
> I will look into libsmithwaterman. Thanks!
Good. Just let me know if something might remain unclear.
> > Its a simple package also featuring a rewrite of the build system
> > (which might or might not be appropriate here - just mentioning it)
> > and shows the two binary packages what files belong where. (For
> > the moment feel free to ignore d-shlibs - I'll explain later if needed.
> > It works only if shared *and* static library are provided.)
> Thanks for the thorough message.
This is the idea of a MoM project: I try to be verbose and patiently
to guide newcomers. :-)
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
