Re: ITR: libitpp (updated package)
Dear Neil,
I have a new package ready at:
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libitpp/libitpp_3.99.2-1.dsc
On 01/07/07, Neil Williams wrote:
> > A -dbg package needs to be provided.
> > (-dbg packages are likely to become mandatory by Lenny.)
Done this.
In practical terms, not all those who need the -dev package are
actually writing new software with that -dev. A lot are simply
*building* reverse dependencies of that -dev. When someone needs to
build pilot-qof, there is no need for them to have libqof-doc, they
only need libqof-dev. Such issues also affect the autobuilders - there
is no need for them to have the doc content when trying to build a
dependency using the -dev.
I understand this well. It's just that IT++ isn't meant to be a
library used by applications, though I don't discount that. Mostly,
it's for writing simulation programs for various communication schemes
etc., with many of GNU Octave or Matlab type features. But, I am also
in favour of splitting the docs.
No, tidying up the short descriptions so that the new packages are not
simple copies (as the -dev is currently).
I got this. Please look into the package now.
? You should always build your own packages with pbuilder at least once
for each upstream release - if only to ensure you have the
Build-Depends right. Simply watching or reading the pdebuild log will
show you that your package brings in more packages than a relatively
large GUI application. Please look beyond your own package and try to
anticipate problems.
Henceforth I shall be more aware. And the above debs are made using pbuilder.
> However, I guess I can drop dependency on atlas (see
> http://itpp.sourceforge.net/index.php?wiki=About ), though I'd consult upstream
> before doing that.
Yes, the reduced functionality is a concern. Upstream may be able to
separate the codebase so that you can create a libitpp-atlas6 and
libittp6 that would be without atlas - one conflicting and replacing
the other (not ideal) or one complementing the other by adding new
files without replacing libittp6 (harder to do upstream).
Right now, I've just removed the atlas3 dependency. Please check it
out, and I'll also talk to upstream about it. However, I don't think
features are lost by this change. If anything, performance will be
affected, to the best of my understanding.
Just put your email address into the subscribe box at:
http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/atlas3.html
Have done this.
> I am an "end-user" of this package, and not very familiar with the dependencies.
> Therefore, I didn't see the storm brewing.
Hmm. The New Maintainer Guide does clearly warn about packaging
libraries. What is the application that uses libittp? As sponsor I can
help with libittp issues and advise on other general issues but you do
need to take a lot of this on board yourself and find your own
motivation to look beyond the specific package and into the issues that
are just waiting to become *your* problems later.
I accept this advice. But note that it is highly unlikely that a
mathematical simulation type toolkit type library like IT++ will have
any applications based on it, though the possibility cannot be
discounted.
Anyway, I promise a more proactive role in the Debian packaging
procedure. After all, I am to be "mentored", right? :-)
> > > The package is lintian clean.
> >
> > No, it is not.
It is now.
Thanks a lot for your inputs. I am sure the package is a lot better
now, but please do mail in your comments for changes, and I shall
incorporate them.
Thanks again!
Kumar
--
Kumar Appaiah,
462, Jamuna Hostel,
Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai - 600036
Reply to: