Hi Tony,
I did not received any answer to my mail. Did I missed something? I would like
to upload to close the bug, but the manpage issue should be sorted out before.
I also noted that there is a new upstream version - perhaps we skip 2.33 and
just upload 2.34?
What do you think?
Kind regards
Andreas.
- Forwarded message from Andreas Tille -
Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 17:05:22 +0200
From: Andreas Tille
To: debian-med@lists.debian.org
Cc: 705...@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: [u...@debian.org: Bug#705382: flexbar: FTBFS on unsupported
architectures]
X-Spam_score: -8.2
Hi Tony,
sorry for the longish (vacation associated) delay.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 02:51:20PM +0100, Tony Travis wrote:
> On 23/04/13 17:16, Tony Travis wrote:
> > [..]
> > I've changed the Architecture and updated the package to use your new
> > upstream source tarball as Andreas recommended. I'm testing it locally,
> > and it all seems to be working OK. I'll commit the debian files to the
> > svn repository that we are using and ask Andreas' advice about how to
> > submit an updated "flexbar" package to Debian-Med correctly.
>
> Hi, Andreas.
>
> I've built and tested the new Flexbar v2.33 package locally, and
> committed my changes to the svn trunk/debian for "flexbar".
Regarding your changelog entry: Please do NOT replace old changelog
entries. You should use the command
dch -i
to create new changelog entries for new package versions. I have fixed
this in SVN.
You also changed the debian/control file to close bug #705382. This
needs to be mentioned in debian/changelog and the bug should be closed
(done in SVN and commited).
I also documented the change in debian/copyright properly in
debian/changelog.
I'm not yet convinced about your change of debian/flexbar.1. Looking
at
http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/debian-med/trunk/packages/flexbar/trunk/debian/flexbar.1?r1=13068&r2=13414
I see the following problems of the new file:
NAME section just says nothing in the new version while the old one
has a proper description. What should be the content of the
NAME section is given in DESCRIPTION which is plain wrong
(just try `man ls` for comparison)
SYNOPSIS is lacking the .SH flag
DESCRIPTION (the *real* description) is also lacking the .SH flag
(as most of the other following section)
SEE ALSO is a boilerplate of help2man if you forget to add the
--no-info option (I really wished this option would be
the default - seems FSF is never giving up advertising
their info format)
I'm not really sure but if I remember correctly how I created the
manpage in Kiel than I think to remember that I did (more or less) heavy
manual changes to the file after using a draft from help2man. If you
try to rerun help2man blindly this will not lead to a better manpage. I
have no idea whether it is easier to maintain the once existing manpage
manually or create s script that fixes help2man output afterwards.
Kind regards
Andreas.
PS: Did you talked with upstream author about 32-bit builds and if yes
would you include i386 and powerpc into the list of available
architectures because libtbb-dev exists on all these architectures?
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130508150522.gi13...@an3as.eu
- End forwarded message -
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130607112426.gb24...@an3as.eu
