[Debian-ha-maintainers] libqb_0.17.1-1_amd64.changes is NEW

[Ferenc Wagner]

Christoph Berg <myon at debian.org> writes:

> Re: Richard B Winters 2015-04-24 <1429834338.8752.77.camel at mmogp.com>
>
>>> Do you want to redo 0.17.1-1, or release 0.17.1-2?  I've pushed some
>>> changes based on the (now rejected) 0.17.1-1 upload to
>>> https://github.com/wferi/libqb/commits/debian/sid, please take a look.
>>> (This is the DEP-14 repo structure I originally put up as a demo while
>>> debating the best structure.)
>
> I've cherry-picked some of your changes from there, thanks!
>
> Most notably, I've omitted the soname bump, as we should only deviate
> from upstream if there's an actual reason. So far I haven't seen any
> problems with the new libqb version (though I haven't tried too hard
> yet).

Maybe I should ping https://github.com/ClusterLabs/libqb/issues/134, in
case the libqb maintainers have something to add.

> Feri, if you have more to add, can you push that to the alioth repo?

More to remove.  I'd like to declare the library package Multi-Arch:
same, but the triplets are dropped from the paths.  The commit message
of 526b3844 does not explain this move (and enabling dependency tracking
does not buy us anything anyway).  So I prefer my 2d880746.

I also added a couple of more relations:
Package: libqb-doc
Recommends: w3m | www-browser
Suggests: libqb-dev

The left-behind docs/doxygen_sqlite3.db is a good catch, but that should
be cleaned by the upstream docs/Makefile.am, so an upstreamable patch
would be more useful than bringing in the debian/clean big hammer.

Especially that .version (according to build-aux/git-version-gen) should
be present in the distribution tarball (pity we've only got a git tag).
Thus I created a patch for bringing .version in.  This will complain
loudly when upstream fixes this problem.  The same goes for another
missing file, .tarball-version, too.

> it's correct that the upload needed to be removed to get a proper
> orig tarball in place

Have you found a proper upstream distribution tarball for 0.17.1?  If
you mean the GitHub tag links, I wonder how stable they results are...

>>> I've just noticed your activity in the debian-ha repo.  AFAIK, replacing
>>> the Doxygen-installed jquery.js by a pure jquery.js from jQuery is
>>> specifically recommended against by the Doxygen developers, because
>>> their jquery.js contains other code besides jQuery.
>
> Upstreams tend to recommend using embedded code copies a lot. Is there
> any documentation what they actually changed in jquery?

So, but see doxygen itself for a more detailed description of the problems:
https://sources.debian.net/src/doxygen/1.8.8-5/debian/README.jquery/
-- 
Regards,
Feri.