Improve the Val(a)ide package
Hello, I would like improve the debian package of Val(a)IDE (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=547665). I have already fixed lintian errors and several warnings in the development version, but some warning persist: W: valide-common: image-file-in-usr-lib usr/lib/valide/plugins/file-browser/file-browser.png W: valide-common: image-file-in-usr-lib usr/lib/valide/plugins/opened-documents/opened-documents.png W: valide-common: image-file-in-usr-lib usr/lib/valide/plugins/symbol/symbol-browser.png W: valide-common: extra-license-file usr/share/valide/COPYING W: valide: non-dev-pkg-with-shlib-symlink usr/lib/libvalide-0.0.so.0.7.0 usr/lib/libvalide-0.0.so W: valide: package-name-doesnt-match-sonames libvalide-0.0-0 Are these warnings are blocking? -- Nicolas Joseph http://www.valaide.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Improve the Val(a)ide package
Thank's for your answer! I'm the upstream, and I think I understood the litian warnings but not their consequenses. >> W: valide-common: image-file-in-usr-lib >> usr/lib/valide/plugins/file-browser/file-browser.png >> W: valide-common: image-file-in-usr-lib >> usr/lib/valide/plugins/opened-documents/opened-documents.png >> W: valide-common: image-file-in-usr-lib >> usr/lib/valide/plugins/symbol/symbol-browser.png > > These should be installed to /usr/share instead. You might need to > patch the source to install them in the right place. See here for why: > > http://lintian.debian.org/tags/image-file-in-usr-lib.html > If it's a critical warning, I can fix it, but I prefer to have all files in the same directory. >> W: valide-common: extra-license-file usr/share/valide/COPYING > > Unless the application needs it, there is no reason to install this file. > > http://lintian.debian.org/tags/extra-license-file.html > Yes the application use the COPYING file for show the license in the about dialog. >> W: valide: non-dev-pkg-with-shlib-symlink usr/lib/libvalide-0.0.so.0.7.0 >> usr/lib/libvalide-0.0.so >> W: valide: package-name-doesnt-match-sonames libvalide-0.0-0 > > I imagine these are not meant to be public libraries. If they are > supposed to be private, please work with upstream to make them private > libraries (install in a subdir of /usr/lib). If they are meant to be > public libraries, you need to read libpkg-guide and the bugs filed > against it. > This library is used by the core application, if it's not placed in /usr/lib I have the classic error: valide: error while loading shared libraries: libvalide-0.0.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory I think that the library is in the good directory (like Anjuta). Is it reasonable to have six packages for this simple application? -- Nicolas Joseph http://www.valaide.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Improve the Val(a)ide package
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:35:27 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 5:47 AM, Nicolas Joseph
> wrote:
>
>>> These should be installed to /usr/share instead. You might need to
>>> patch the source to install them in the right place. See here for why:
>>>
>>> http://lintian.debian.org/tags/image-file-in-usr-lib.html
>>
>> If it's a critical warning, I can fix it, but I prefer to have all
files
>> in the same directory.
>
> Debian prefers FHS compliance
>
>>>> W: valide-common: extra-license-file usr/share/valide/COPYING
>>>
>>> Unless the application needs it, there is no reason to install this
>> file.
>>>
>>> http://lintian.debian.org/tags/extra-license-file.html
>>>
>>
>> Yes the application use the COPYING file for show the license in the
>> about
>> dialog.
>
> In that case it is appropriate to override the lintian warning. If it
> is the same as a license in /usr/share/common-licenses then you might
> just want to configure the software to display that instead.
> Alternatively, I think many apps just show the license grant ("This
> program is free software") in the about dialog and leave the
> license terms for the user to find if they want to.
>
Fixed in trunk.
>>>> W: valide: non-dev-pkg-with-shlib-symlink
>> usr/lib/libvalide-0.0.so.0.7.0
>>>> usr/lib/libvalide-0.0.so
>>>> W: valide: package-name-doesnt-match-sonames libvalide-0.0-0
>>>
>>> I imagine these are not meant to be public libraries. If they are
>>> supposed to be private, please work with upstream to make them private
>>> libraries (install in a subdir of /usr/lib). If they are meant to be
>>> public libraries, you need to read libpkg-guide and the bugs filed
>>> against it.
>>
>> This library is used by the core application, if it's not placed in
>> /usr/lib I have the classic error:
>>
>> valide: error while loading shared libraries: libvalide-0.0.so.0:
>> cannot
>> open shared object file: No such file or directory
>>
>> I think that the library is in the good directory (like Anjuta). Is it
>> reasonable to have six packages for this simple application?
>
> It appears that most of the anjuta libraries are private ones and are
> not located in /usr/lib:
>
> http://packages.debian.org/sid/amd64/anjuta/filelist
>
Except the core library /usr/lib/libanjuta.so I have the same
architecture.
> If no other applications make use of the library, it is a good idea to
> make it a private library. You can do that by placing it in a
> subdirectory of /usr/lib (multi-arch will make this more complex
> though) and using rpath to tell the binary where to find the library.
> Some more info about rpath can be found here:
>
> http://wiki.debian.org/RpathIssue
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/07/msg02030.html
>
- The lib is not intended to be used by anyone else. There's no -dev
package for it, it is just a convenience lib to avoid that lots of
related binaries contain the same code.
This point confirm my opignion: I have a -dev package for develop plugins.
I think my package is clean, I will continue to read the DD guide to you
propose it.
Thank's for your help.
--
Nicolas Joseph
http://www.valaide.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Different package sizes on amd64 and (cross)i386
Hello, I try to build a package for i386 and amd64. I cross-build the i386 package with the recommendation of the FAQ: http://wiki.debian.org/DebianAMD64Faq#line-95 but independent architecture packages (common.dev, dev.dev and debian.tar.gz) are a different size. The content is the same, it's propably the compression, better on i386. Here the content of the .change file: * for amd64 Files: a48bee53376b85ccc39a1d9b83d6d2d3 913 devel optional valide_0.7.0-1.dsc 13c01d12262341f3a5e5bf671e5bb33a 1496411 devel optional valide_0.7.0.orig.tar.gz 5549ed7846ab9b8deb885d4b3d21cae7 5055 devel optional valide_0.7.0-1.debian.tar.gz d2e0fc0686f167cec0143611d81be0d4 641460 devel optional valide_0.7.0-1_amd64.deb 146b7a571e4c9d1c428c8a62354670c9 253824 devel optional valide-common_0.7.0-1_all.deb 2844a0b72a69306bb8cf8225401dae42 49228 devel optional valide-dev_0.7.0-1_all.deb 866cd83f20fced4ea4a796fab6ec2ab1 6544620 debug extra valide-dbg_0.7.0-1_amd64.deb * for i386 Files: e7f66dce3107b0c337d1837607133820 913 devel optional valide_0.7.0-1.dsc 13c01d12262341f3a5e5bf671e5bb33a 1496411 devel optional valide_0.7.0.orig.tar.gz 37861bf8bb9d52e089f7fe68614cb1e6 5054 devel optional valide_0.7.0-1.debian.tar.gz 86c0106ebb461a328cf2bd3dde72b3f9 551350 devel optional valide_0.7.0-1_i386.deb 0a1c4d48123986d472e60e61c6d12818 253840 devel optional valide-common_0.7.0-1_all.deb 8a883165f0fe37e03258c9ff46f8dda1 49234 devel optional valide-dev_0.7.0-1_all.deb 832ae60a005d5276c5aa0ab21da861ba 6547974 debug extra valide-dbg_0.7.0-1_i386.deb Have you an idea? Thank's in advance. -- Nicolas Joseph -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktil91ewgtobe72tu3yewsixd7sak1lnuebare...@mail.gmail.com
Different package sizes on amd64 and (cross)i386
Hello, I try to build a package for i386 and amd64. I cross-build the i386 package with the recommendation of the FAQ: http://wiki.debian.org/DebianAMD64Faq#line-95 but independent architecture packages (common.dev, dev.dev and debian.tar.gz) are a different size. The content is the same, it's propably the compression, better on i386. Here the content of the .change file: * for amd64 Files: a48bee53376b85ccc39a1d9b83d6d2d3 913 devel optional valide_0.7.0-1.dsc 13c01d12262341f3a5e5bf671e5bb33a 1496411 devel optional valide_0.7.0.orig.tar.gz 5549ed7846ab9b8deb885d4b3d21cae7 5055 devel optional valide_0.7.0-1.debian.tar.gz d2e0fc0686f167cec0143611d81be0d4 641460 devel optional valide_0.7.0-1_amd64.deb 146b7a571e4c9d1c428c8a62354670c9 253824 devel optional valide-common_0.7.0-1_all.deb 2844a0b72a69306bb8cf8225401dae42 49228 devel optional valide-dev_0.7.0-1_all.deb 866cd83f20fced4ea4a796fab6ec2ab1 6544620 debug extra valide-dbg_0.7.0-1_amd64.deb * for i386 Files: e7f66dce3107b0c337d1837607133820 913 devel optional valide_0.7.0-1.dsc 13c01d12262341f3a5e5bf671e5bb33a 1496411 devel optional valide_0.7.0.orig.tar.gz 37861bf8bb9d52e089f7fe68614cb1e6 5054 devel optional valide_0.7.0-1.debian.tar.gz 86c0106ebb461a328cf2bd3dde72b3f9 551350 devel optional valide_0.7.0-1_i386.deb 0a1c4d48123986d472e60e61c6d12818 253840 devel optional valide-common_0.7.0-1_all.deb 8a883165f0fe37e03258c9ff46f8dda1 49234 devel optional valide-dev_0.7.0-1_all.deb 832ae60a005d5276c5aa0ab21da861ba 6547974 debug extra valide-dbg_0.7.0-1_i386.deb Have you an idea? Thank's in advance. -- Nicolas Joseph -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktilx27yswqi4-tdoeuoy8n78sqrcszhth9exi...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Different package sizes on amd64 and (cross)i386
Maybe but debarchiver reject my upload because the file is already added and has a different md5 sum. how do you do for real repositories? 2010/5/16 Goswin von Brederlow : > Nicolas Joseph writes: > >> Hello, >> >> I try to build a package for i386 and amd64. I cross-build the i386 package >> with >> the recommendation of the FAQ: http://wiki.debian.org/DebianAMD64Faq#line-95 >> but >> independent architecture packages (common.dev, dev.dev and debian.tar.gz) are >> a different size. >> >> The content is the same, it's propably the compression, better on i386. >> >> Here the content of the .change file: >> >> * for amd64 >> Files: >> a48bee53376b85ccc39a1d9b83d6d2d3 913 devel optional valide_0.7.0-1.dsc >> 13c01d12262341f3a5e5bf671e5bb33a 1496411 devel optional >> valide_0.7.0.orig.tar.gz >> 5549ed7846ab9b8deb885d4b3d21cae7 5055 devel optional >> valide_0.7.0-1.debian.tar.gz >> d2e0fc0686f167cec0143611d81be0d4 641460 devel optional >> valide_0.7.0-1_amd64.deb >> 146b7a571e4c9d1c428c8a62354670c9 253824 devel optional >> valide-common_0.7.0-1_all.deb >> 2844a0b72a69306bb8cf8225401dae42 49228 devel optional >> valide-dev_0.7.0-1_all.deb >> 866cd83f20fced4ea4a796fab6ec2ab1 6544620 debug extra >> valide-dbg_0.7.0-1_amd64.deb >> >> * for i386 >> Files: >> e7f66dce3107b0c337d1837607133820 913 devel optional valide_0.7.0-1.dsc >> 13c01d12262341f3a5e5bf671e5bb33a 1496411 devel optional >> valide_0.7.0.orig.tar.gz >> 37861bf8bb9d52e089f7fe68614cb1e6 5054 devel optional >> valide_0.7.0-1.debian.tar.gz >> 86c0106ebb461a328cf2bd3dde72b3f9 551350 devel optional >> valide_0.7.0-1_i386.deb >> 0a1c4d48123986d472e60e61c6d12818 253840 devel optional >> valide-common_0.7.0-1_all.deb >> 8a883165f0fe37e03258c9ff46f8dda1 49234 devel optional >> valide-dev_0.7.0-1_all.deb >> 832ae60a005d5276c5aa0ab21da861ba 6547974 debug extra >> valide-dbg_0.7.0-1_i386.deb >> >> >> Have you an idea? >> >> Thank's in advance. > > You are talking about a few bytes. You probably just got lucky on i386 > and got timestamps that compress better. > > MfG > Goswin > -- Nicolas Joseph -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktilfiswluk50hylk4sfvklpjxbnk6zzmeyla6...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Different package sizes on amd64 and (cross)i386
This is not me, I use dput. Should I delete manually packages in the .change file? 2010/5/16 Matthew Palmer : > On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 04:12:20PM +0200, Nicolas Joseph wrote: >> Maybe but debarchiver reject my upload because the file is already added and >> has >> a different md5 sum. >> >> how do you do for real repositories? > > You don't upload the same package version twice. If you need to update, > bump the version number. > > We also don't top post. > > - Matt > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100516195827.gp30...@hezmatt.org > > -- Nicolas Joseph -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktinzkqfh1p3nqtbrml8hw2neq-kq87tww76_u...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Different package sizes on amd64 and (cross)i386
2010/5/17 Goswin von Brederlow : > Nicolas Joseph writes: > >> Maybe but debarchiver reject my upload because the file is already added and >> has >> a different md5 sum. >> >> how do you do for real repositories? >> >> 2010/5/16 Goswin von Brederlow : >>> Nicolas Joseph writes: >>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> I try to build a package for i386 and amd64. I cross-build the i386 >>>> package with >>>> the recommendation of the FAQ: >>>> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianAMD64Faq#line-95 but >>>> independent architecture packages (common.dev, dev.dev and debian.tar.gz) >>>> are >>>> a different size. >>>> >>>> The content is the same, it's propably the compression, better on i386. >>>> >>>> Here the content of the .change file: >>>> >>>> * for amd64 >>>> Files: >>>> a48bee53376b85ccc39a1d9b83d6d2d3 913 devel optional valide_0.7.0-1.dsc >>>> 13c01d12262341f3a5e5bf671e5bb33a 1496411 devel optional >>>> valide_0.7.0.orig.tar.gz >>>> 5549ed7846ab9b8deb885d4b3d21cae7 5055 devel optional >>>> valide_0.7.0-1.debian.tar.gz >>>> d2e0fc0686f167cec0143611d81be0d4 641460 devel optional >>>> valide_0.7.0-1_amd64.deb >>>> 146b7a571e4c9d1c428c8a62354670c9 253824 devel optional >>>> valide-common_0.7.0-1_all.deb >>>> 2844a0b72a69306bb8cf8225401dae42 49228 devel optional >>>> valide-dev_0.7.0-1_all.deb >>>> 866cd83f20fced4ea4a796fab6ec2ab1 6544620 debug extra >>>> valide-dbg_0.7.0-1_amd64.deb >>>> >>>> * for i386 >>>> Files: >>>> e7f66dce3107b0c337d1837607133820 913 devel optional valide_0.7.0-1.dsc >>>> 13c01d12262341f3a5e5bf671e5bb33a 1496411 devel optional >>>> valide_0.7.0.orig.tar.gz >>>> 37861bf8bb9d52e089f7fe68614cb1e6 5054 devel optional >>>> valide_0.7.0-1.debian.tar.gz >>>> 86c0106ebb461a328cf2bd3dde72b3f9 551350 devel optional >>>> valide_0.7.0-1_i386.deb >>>> 0a1c4d48123986d472e60e61c6d12818 253840 devel optional >>>> valide-common_0.7.0-1_all.deb >>>> 8a883165f0fe37e03258c9ff46f8dda1 49234 devel optional >>>> valide-dev_0.7.0-1_all.deb >>>> 832ae60a005d5276c5aa0ab21da861ba 6547974 debug extra >>>> valide-dbg_0.7.0-1_i386.deb >>>> >>>> >>>> Have you an idea? >>>> >>>> Thank's in advance. >>> >>> You are talking about a few bytes. You probably just got lucky on i386 >>> and got timestamps that compress better. >>> >>> MfG >>> Goswin > > Build the package with -s, -sa or -b on amd64 and with -B on i386. That > way the i386 build will only add the i386 specific packages and not > source or architecture independent packages. > > MfG > Goswin > That works fine, thank you very much. -- Nicolas Joseph -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktikyop1stkpaaqqi3hpveye-8tkwwiofupwmw...@mail.gmail.com
