On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 07:04:25PM -0600, Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz wrote: > On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 02:02:06PM -0600, Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 06:44:23PM +0200, Peter Pentchev wrote: > > > Dear mentors, > > > > > > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.2.1-3 of the "wmanager" > > > package; I am hereby attempting to adopt it, fix its two bugs, and bring it > > > up-to-date with the Debian policy and the modern world in general :) > > > > I will review your package. You made quite a few changes, so it might > > take me several days. > > Ok, my (very few) comments: > > 1. You have in debian/rules > > build: patch build-stamp > build-stamp: debian/control $(MAN) > > and > > clean: clean-patched unpatch > clean-patched: debian/control > > That's bad, because those rules might fail if the package is ever > built with -j, since they don't enforce patching before building and > cleaning before unpatching. > > Please change them to something like > > build: patch-stamp build-stamp > build-stamp: debian/control patch-stamp $(MAN) > > and > > clean: debian/control > [commands ...] > $(MAKE) -f debian/rules unpatch Done, see below for the updated package. However, there just might be a problem here - not with wmanager itself, but a more general problem. I pretty much copied those rules from the dpatch manual - the "DPATCH IN DEBIAN PACKAGES" section. The examples given there will not work with parallel make either. Should a bug against dpatch be filed to update the manual? Or should we wait until people come to at least some sort of agreement on the parallel make issue before filing any bugs and making changes? :) (yeah, I guess you can tell I've been following the parallel make discussion on debian-policy ;) > 2. It would be nice to pass along at least the makefile patch > upstream. Now, upstream does not seem to be very active. Is that > because of lack of bugs, or a lack of upstream? If the second case is > true, you will be having to act as _de facto_ upstream. Are you > willing and able to do this? I'm not raising an objection here, I just > want you to state it explicitely. Actually I intend to pass *all* the changes upstream - some as bugfixes (the C++ build fixes), some as recommendations (my reworked Makefile), and some as simple suggestions (the system-wide wmanagerrc that was already in the Debian package). I've still not tried to contact Meik Tessmer just because I wanted to wait until the patches are settled - both here in the Debian package and in the FreeBSD port of wmanager that I will also adopt. So, basically, at this point I don't know if the upstream author is active :) On to your actual question - yes, if the upstream author turns out to be inactive, I do intend to take up maintainership of wmanager, both the Debian package, the FreeBSD port, and the "upstream" sources themselves. It is already in my Subversion repository (the Vcs-svn control field points to it), with the Debian and FreeBSD changes integrated as far as possible, and I intend to keep it that way. > 3. Will you be wanting to keep debian/rules as is, or are you planning > to migrate to some helper package? If the second, be aware that I'm > not willing to sponsor cdbs based packages. I don't understand it and > I'm not really willing to learn it. Thus, I'd politely recommend ;) > you use debhelper. Well, I myself like debhelper very much, and both my local packages (most of which will never see the light of day for work-related reasons) and the timelimit package that I've RFS'd recently are all done using debhelper. With wmanager, the situation is somewhat weird - Tommi Virtanen actually used it in the past, but dropped it in version 0.2-4 seven years ago. We'll see - there's a very good chance that I will reintroduce debhelper at some point instead of doing things by hand (like the md5sums file creation). In this version, I just wanted to deviate as little as possible from Tommi Virtanen's work. > Other than that, your package is very nicely updated, so as soon as > you do the patching rules fixes, I can sponsor this version. Thanks a lot! :) I uploaded an updated version to mentors.debian.net - http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/wmanager/wmanager_0.2.1-3.dsc The only change is in the debian/rules file; no revision bump, no new changelog entries, since this falls under the "Switch to dpatch" entry that I already added at the very start. I saw your message earlier today about naming interim uploads ~1, ~2, etc., but IMHO this is not needed in this particular instance; I'll keep it in mind for the future, though. Once again, thanks a lot for the time you took to review this, and for spotting the parallel make issue! G'luck, Peter -- Peter Pentchev roam@ringlet.net roam@cnsys.bg roam@FreeBSD.org PGP key: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc Key fingerprint FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553 No language can express every thought unambiguously, least of all this one.
Attachment:
pgp5AwoO9vflG.pgp
Description: PGP signature