Hello, > On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Stefanos Harhalakis <v...@v13.gr> wrote: > > The upload would fix these bugs: 507655, 510275 > > Firstly, there was no need to file 510275, instead you should have > just retitled the RFP 507655 to ITP and marked yourself as the owner. > Please read these: > > http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/#l3 > http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control#retitle > http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control#owner > > Secondly, I've merged them and retitled 507655. So you only need to > close one and the other will be closed too.
Didn't know that. Thanks. I've also changed the owner of bug #507655 as you suggested. > Quick review of the diff.gz: > > debian/watch needn't have blank lines or comments. Fixed > Please forward the manual page upstream if you have not already. Will do > Post-lenny, kde3/qt3 will be transitioned away from, so it might be a > good idea to ask upstream to port the app to KDE 4 & Qt 4. Same for > the HAL -> DeviceKit transition. The KDE4 port is already in the TODO list. From what I've read KDE4 uses solid. This means that when porting Krypt to KDE4 it will start using DeviceKit when solid will change to that. > debian/rules contains a lot of unnessecary comments and stuff. Removed a lot of them. > debian/rules doesn't handle DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=noopt or > DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=parallel (see debian-policy for info about these). Why dh_make doesn't add those by default? Also, is there a place that says how this is done? Following those instructions: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-debianrules doesn't work as expected. When I add this to debian/rules: ifneq (,$(filter parallel=%,$(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS))) NUMJOBS=$(patsubst parallel=%,%,$(filter parallel=%,$(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS))) MAKEFLAGS+=-j$(NUMJOBS) endif MAKEFLAGS is somehow altered and becomes "--jobserver-fds=3,5 -j". Even if I add: MAKEFLAGS+=-j4 the 4 is striped. Using: MAKEFLAGS+=-j4 KOKO+=j4 and then doing: echo $(MAKEFLAGS) $(KOKO) shows that MAKEFLAGS is changed but KOKO isn't. Help! :-) > debian/rules runs dh_installexamples but there are no debian/*examples > files Removed that > since you are depending on debhelper 7 and using compat 7, perhaps you > should be using features from it? see the dh manual page, > /usr/share/doc/debhelper/examples/rules.simple and > /usr/share/doc/debhelper/examples/rules.tiny. I've looked that in the past but didn't find anything. Is there any documentation for debhelper 7? /usr/share/doc/debhelper, debian policy and NMG doesn't mention its (new?) syntax (7) (or I didn't find it). Google didn't show much too. From the examples I'm unable to understand what is going on. Should I instead change 'compat' to 6? p.s. Please *PLEASE* PLEASE *PLEASE* CC people like me that post to debian-mentors. p.s.2. PLEASE consider changing that policy of not CCing posters. At least mention somewhere that one have to be subscribed to debian-mentors to get a reply. I believe that most people looking for sponsors in debian-mentors aren't subscribed to the list (right?). Once more, I found this reply because I searched google. For another package I found the reply 2 months after it was posted using google (again). Is there any reasoning for not CCing posters? Is there a way I can fill a bug report against this? p.s.3 Shouldn't at least the BTS ITP bug number be CCed? (like Scott Kitterman did). p.s.4 As you understand there was no way to reply to your e-mail except from copying-pasting it to a new e-mail, adding quotes by hand (or via kmail), spending unneeded time for this (wait for answer, no answer, look google, found message, copy-paste, quotes, etc) and practically ruining the threading of the list's archives. In fact, it looks like a forum-posting procedure (!). It is also a bit of 'go-away' practice for new people willing to help/package. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
