Re: Where to place cmake files (Was: Help in cmake / itk issue needed)
Hello Andreas, On Mon, 2015-05-18 at 08:47 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > > $ apt-file search /usr/share/cmake | wc -l > 3583 > $ apt-file search /usr/lib/cmake | wc -l > 1419 Well, when you look at the package count that provide cmake files, it looks a bit different: apt-file search /usr/share/cmake | sed -e "s/:.*//" | sort -u | wc -l 15 apt-file search /usr/lib/cmake | sed -e "s/:.*//" | sort -u | wc -l 48 However, the important thing, is that at least ITKConfig.cmake contains some arch dependent lines, e.g: set(ITK_FFTW_LIBDIR "/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu") > I was actually thinking about > >git://git.debian.org/git/debian-med/bamtools.git > > which I did not yet uploaded since I'm unsure about the "hand-made" > cmake file in debian/cmake itself, the choice of a subdirectory > debian/cmake/bamtools and the actual content of the cmake file. A look at the cmake source code indicates that both, "lib" and "share" are in the default search path, so I would guess, that "/usr/share/cmake" is okay as long as there are no arch specifics in the file (as it seems to the case with bamtools). Best Gert -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1431941328.5264.32.ca...@gmail.com
Re: Where to place cmake files (Was: Help in cmake / itk issue needed)
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 11:28:48AM +0200, Gert Wollny wrote: > > I was actually thinking about > > > >git://git.debian.org/git/debian-med/bamtools.git > > > > which I did not yet uploaded since I'm unsure about the "hand-made" > > cmake file in debian/cmake itself, the choice of a subdirectory > > debian/cmake/bamtools and the actual content of the cmake file. > > A look at the cmake source code indicates that both, "lib" and "share" > are in the default search path, so I would guess, that > "/usr/share/cmake" is okay as long as there are no arch specifics in the > file (as it seems to the case with bamtools). Thanks for the hint, uploaded that way Andreas. -- 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: https://lists.debian.org/20150518100142.gb11...@an3as.eu
Re: Where to place cmake files (Was: Help in cmake / itk issue needed)
2015-05-18 11:01 GMT+01:00 Andreas Tille : > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 11:28:48AM +0200, Gert Wollny wrote: > > > I was actually thinking about > > > > > >git://git.debian.org/git/debian-med/bamtools.git > > > > > > which I did not yet uploaded since I'm unsure about the "hand-made" > > > cmake file in debian/cmake itself, the choice of a subdirectory > > > debian/cmake/bamtools and the actual content of the cmake file. > > > > A look at the cmake source code indicates that both, "lib" and "share" > > are in the default search path, so I would guess, that > > "/usr/share/cmake" is okay as long as there are no arch specifics in the > > file (as it seems to the case with bamtools). > > Thanks for the hint, uploaded that way > Andreas. > > -- > 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: https://lists.debian.org/20150518100142.gb11...@an3as.eu > > >From my current experience with a couple of CMake-based projects, the consensus seems to be to put the custom CMake modules and related configs under /usr/lib/cmake/ or /usr/share/cmake/ on Linux. I have seen the former path used more often than the latter. I remembered asking about the right location of these CMake files a while back somewhere in d/mentors or d/science and there was no particular stands on this. Ghis
[MoM] r-cran-fastmatch: last polishing
Dear Alba, I did some minor changes to your r-cran-fastmatch packaging: 1. cme fix dpkg-control As suggested in Debian Med policy this does some sensible polishing - in this case fixing the canonical VCS fields 2. Removed the Testsuite field from debian/control since there is no testsuite provided Please `gbp pull` to fetch the changes I did. Otherwise the package is fine and thus I uploaded it. Currently new queue processing is quite slow and thus I can not tell when it will be accepted in official Debian. Thanks for your work on this Andreas. -- 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: https://lists.debian.org/20150518185856.ga8...@an3as.eu
[MoM] r-cran-nnls: please fix copyright
Dear Alba, I had a look into your commits for r-cran-nnls. I noticed that there is a file inst/COPYRIGHTS specifying copyright information for the Files: src/*.f Please mention this in a separate paragraph in debian/copyright since otherwise ftpmaster will refuse the package. Moreover I would like you to do cme fix dpkg-control as I did for r-cran-fastmatch to see how helpful this command is. Otherwise the package looks ready for upload as well. Kind regards and thanks for your work on this Andreas. -- 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: https://lists.debian.org/20150518190451.gb8...@an3as.eu
Re: [MoM] r-cran-fastmatch: last polishing
Dear Andreas, 2015-05-18 19:58 GMT+01:00 Andreas Tille : > Please `gbp pull` to fetch the changes I did. > I've now pulled those changes. > Otherwise the package is fine and thus I uploaded it. Currently new > queue processing is quite slow and thus I can not tell when it will be > accepted in official Debian. Thanks! Alba
Re: [MoM] r-cran-nnls: please fix copyright
2015-05-18 20:04 GMT+01:00 Andreas Tille : > I had a look into your commits for r-cran-nnls. I noticed that there > is a file inst/COPYRIGHTS specifying copyright information for the > Thanks -- I'd forgotten to add entries for that, but have done it now. > Moreover I would like you to do > >cme fix dpkg-control > > as I did for r-cran-fastmatch to see how helpful this command is. > Also done. > Otherwise the package looks ready for upload as well. > Let me know if you find anything else. Alba
Re: [MoM] r-cran-nnls: please fix copyright
Hi Alba, On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 08:49:15PM +0100, Alba Crespi wrote: > > I had a look into your commits for r-cran-nnls. I noticed that there > > is a file inst/COPYRIGHTS specifying copyright information for the > > Thanks -- I'd forgotten to add entries for that, but have done it now. Lintian is a bit picky about this. Did you tried lintian -i -I r-cran-nnls_1.4-1_amd64.changes It gives hints to a spelling error wildcard-matches-nothing-in-dep5-copyright src/nnls.f and unused-file-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright paragraph at line 9 A missing Copyright field missing-field-in-dep5-copyright Duplicated license names dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique (you should rather use one paragrap "License: public-domain ..." and refer to this). You are no facing the most boring part of Debian packaging: handcrafting proper copyright files. :-) Kind regards Andreas. -- 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: https://lists.debian.org/20150518202152.gc8...@an3as.eu
Re: [MoM] r-cran-nnls: please fix copyright
Hi Andreas, 2015-05-18 21:21 GMT+01:00 Andreas Tille : > > A missing Copyright field > >missing-field-in-dep5-copyright > There is no copyright holder, since it's public domain! I can list the author there, but that's not really correct. > Duplicated license names dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique > (you should rather use one paragrap "License: public-domain ..." > and refer to this). > OK, I had made them separate as the "public domain" for the two files is completely independent, not a shared licence. Alba
Breaking ABI in shlibs (yaml-cpp)
I recently updated yaml-cpp from 0.5.1 to 0.5.2. This caused a bug in a dependent package [1]. It turns out, 0.5.2 is not binary compatible with 0.5.1 (abi-compliance-checker confirms this) and is probably the source of the bug. Does anyone have advice? What should I do to resolve this? Thanks, -Paul [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=784207 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1431994806.76158.272194361.66876...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: [MoM] r-cran-nnls: please fix copyright
Hi Alba, On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:43:58PM +0100, Alba Crespi wrote: > 2015-05-18 21:21 GMT+01:00 Andreas Tille : > > > A missing Copyright field > > > >missing-field-in-dep5-copyright > > > > There is no copyright holder, since it's public domain! > > I can list the author there, but that's not really correct. We are now diving in the field of law where at least I feel totally incompetent and I just repeat what I was told and what I understand with my poor background. There are countries (for instance Germany) where as an author you can not "loose" your copyright as an author. There is a difference between copyright and a license. To put something under publich domain means you give permission to everybody to do whatever the user wants to do. However, you remain the author of the code and will never loose this status. >From a Debian point of view I can tell you that it is safe to list the author under Copyright and public-domain as license. This is what ftpmaster wants you to do to accept the package (at least to my experience) and I think this makes some sense to fit different law systems. > > Duplicated license names dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique > > (you should rather use one paragrap "License: public-domain ..." > > and refer to this). > > > > OK, I had made them separate as the "public domain" for the two files is > completely independent, not a shared licence. Please push your changes to let me have a look. Kind regards Andreas. -- 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: https://lists.debian.org/20150519060838.ga23...@an3as.eu
Re: Breaking ABI in shlibs (yaml-cpp)
Hi Paul On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 08:20:06PM -0400, Paul Novotny wrote: > I recently updated yaml-cpp from 0.5.1 to 0.5.2. This caused a bug in a > dependent package [1]. It turns out, 0.5.2 is not binary compatible with > 0.5.1 (abi-compliance-checker confirms this) and is probably the source > of the bug. Does anyone have advice? Quoting from the bug report: "A rebuild indeed fixes this bug" - and the according bug #784199 is just fixed. > What should I do to resolve this? Keep on quoting: "... which indicates some problem with libyaml-cpp's shlib" which might be you could do something about - but I admit I personally don't know what. Besides librime1 there is another rdepends librivet11 which should be probably checked whether it is affected as well. You might consider asking either at debian-ment...@lists.debian.org or yaml-cpp upstream (or both) whether there might be some explanation and fix for this issue. Hope this helps Andreas. -- 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: https://lists.debian.org/20150519062220.gb23...@an3as.eu
