Re: osmpbf package
Hi Jochen,
On 03/11/2014 11:45 AM, Jochen Topf wrote:
> I went through the osmpbf package and I think I have things more or less
> ready for a new release. I am co-maintainer of the upstream package so
> I have made all the changes there [1]:
Thanks for working on the osmpbf packaging. I've updated the osmpbf git
repository on Alioth with the v1.3.1 tagged release, and I've reviewed
your changes in the upstream repository.
The v1.3.1 release includes a debian directory in the source which
caused conflicts with the debian directory for the official Debian package.
It's generally discouraged to include a debian directory in your
upstream project.The UpstreamGuide recommends to leave the debian
directory out of the release tarballs, and just keep in your VCS. But
this is not easily achieved with GitHub releases.
https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide#Pristine_Upstream_Source
In your recent changes you updated the Maintainer to Debian GIS, it's
was better when you used your own email address like in v1.3.1. The
Debian GIS team doesn't maintain the debian/ directory in the upstream
source, we only maintain the official Debian package.
I recommend to set the Maintainer in the upstream source to you as
before, and in the Debian package have Debian GIS as Maintainer and you
as one of the Uploaders. Unless you see your role more as upstream and
would prefer others in the Debian GIS team to be the Uploaders. Team
uploads are always possible.
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#nmu-team-upload
> * The rules file from the Debian package used dh_auto_build etc. but in
> upstream there are now cmake files in addition to the Makefiles, and
> the auto build picks up the cmake stuff. I have changed this to use
> the make build. (The cmake stuff has been added for Windows users.)
You can use the option -B/--buildsystem makefile to force debhelper to
use a specific build system instead of auto-detecting it. I've used this
in the debian/rules for v1.3.1.
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-grass/osmpbf.git;a=blob;f=debian/rules
> * I have slightly changed the description of the packages in upstream
> debian/control file.
Looks good. We can merge the change when you've released the new
upstream version.
> * I don't think we need the debian/patches/00-fix_build_flags.patch any
> more. When I do the build, those flags are added without it.
We don't need the patch anymore indeed.
We do need to append CPPFLAGS to CXXFLAGS to have the
-D_FORTIFY_FUNCTIONS=2 hardening flag used too.
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-grass/osmpbf.git;a=commitdiff;h=747dbf6e4e1d60938a9dfa86dbb17cfc72cca03e
> * There are some small bug fixes, better README, and some other changes.
Looks good too. But the new build flags are not used by the debian
package, you may want to append the buildflags in the Makefile to those
already set externally.
> * Upstream is at version 1.3.1. The changes I made are not in that release
> yet, so after some of you looked it over, I want to make a 1.3.2 release
> and then we can do the final Debian package.
Have a look at the changes I made to the package for v1.3.1:
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-grass/osmpbf.git
If we can minimize the diff between the debian directory maintained
upstream and the debian directory maintained by the Debian GIS team I'd
be very happy.
> Jochen
>
> [1] https://github.com/scrosby/OSM-binary
Kind Regards,
Bas
--
GPG Key ID: 4096R/E88D4AF1
Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1
Reply to: