[Debian-ha-maintainers] libqb is ready

[Ferenc Wagner]

Richard B Winters <rik at mmogp.com> writes:

> wferi at niif.hu writes:
> 
>> Richard B Winters <rik at mmogp.com> writes:
>>
>>>   * debian/patches: Dropped as this is the latest upstream source tree
>> 
>> Where did you start, what did you drop?  In other words: is there a
>> packaging repo for libqb?
>
> If you download the current libqb (apt-get source libqb0) and inspect
> debian/patches...I dropped each of the patches present...is this not
> what you would interpret? This comment should clearly explain that. Am I
> missing something?

I just didn't know the reference point.  If it was 0.17.0-2 from Debian
unstable, then all right, your dropped two patches, which were both
applied upstream.

>>>   * debian/rules: Updated hardening implementation
>> 
>> On debhelper level 9 hardening is fully automatic, just drop it.
>
> Hmm, ok - did not see that before in
> https://wiki.debian.org/HardeningWalkthrough#What_is_all_this_about.3F ,
> will update accordingly.

Is "export DEB_BUILD_MAINT_OPTIONS = hardening=+all" really needed?

Also, I don't get the "ibqb is linked against pthread..." comment block,
could you explain it, please?

>>>   * debian/libqb0.symbols: Added for better cross-dist-version support
>> 
>> I'll have to learn the symbols system.  Jonathan Wiltshire stated in
>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=768922#35 that some
>> bad symbols table resulted in the current mess, and that a soname bump
>> may also be needed.  I don't understand this fully yet, though.
>
> I originally did an soname bump (libqb0a), but found it wasn't
> necessary. Pabs gave me a rather good run-down and then provided me with
> links, which I studied religiously.

Could you please share these lectures with me?

> The current mess is likely because of the lack of a symbols file
> throughout all library packages

I really wonder what Jonathan Wiltshire meant then...  Let me ask him.

>>>   * debian/libqb-dev.docs: Added for coding_style.txt
>> 
>> Generally, I'd prefer dh_installdocs --link-doc=libqb0 and dh_install
>> --fail-missing, if reasonable.  You can even use those via
>> 
>> dh $@ --with autoreconf --fail-missing --link-doc=libqb0
>> 
>> (but see eg. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=685683)
>
> I will use your second suggested implementation - after reading the
> supplied informational link :)

You mustn't use concrete architecture names (like x86_64-linux-gnu) in
the *.install files, because they must work on other architectures as
well.  Wildcard them.

Also, I don't know if you dropped coding_style.txt by mistake, but it
doesn't belong to the documentation of the binary package, so I'd leave
it out anyway.

The bug referenced above points out that switching to --link-doc
requires manual migration in libqb-dev.postinst.  For example:

#!/bin/sh
set -e

if [ "$1" = configure ] && dpkg --compare-versions "$2" lt 0.17.1-1; then
    DOCDIR=/usr/share/doc/libqb-dev
    DOCLINK=/usr/share/doc/libqb0

    if [ -d $DOCDIR ] && [ ! -L $DOCDIR ] ; then
        rmdir $DOCDIR
        ln -s $DOCLINK $DOCDIR
    fi
fi

#DEBHELPER#

exit 0

>>>   * debian/<pkg>.lintian-overrides: Added to prevent lintian flags as a 
>>>     side effect of several of the manual pages not being properly 
>>>     formatted for conversion by doxygen; hyphens, mispellings, and  
>>>     invalid whois entries
>> 
>> I think these are genuine problems and should not be overridden, but
>> rather fixed and upstreamed (especially that you're packaging a git
>> snapshot).  The misspellings are the easiest; I'd have to look into the
>> rest.
>
> Many on Debian mentors found it completely acceptable to ignore those
> errors.

Yes, they are OK to ignore.  Still, they are real problems and should be
fixed eventually.  That's why I don't recommend hiding (overriding)
them.

> This seems like the last thing anyone should be worried about,
> especially considering the state of the stack.

Sure, I don't suggest to fix them now.  Only maybe notify upstream about
the really obvious stuff (like the "incomming" typos).

>>>   * debian/README.debian: Added in order to spell out conditions 
>>>     necessary for user to be able to run pkg-config --modversion 
>>>     successfully post install of libqb-dev
>> 
>> Isn't README.source a better place for this?  You could also point to
>> build-aux/git-version-gen for further explanation.  And I think its
>> value in the package (0.17.1) is incorrect: if I build from git I see
>> VERSION = 0.17.1.9-8355 in the created Makefile.
>
> I don't think so, unless I've misinterpreted the use case for these
> files. There is no need to explain this with regards to the source
> code... its specific to the debian package because of how it is
> packaged (without git directory) and how it builds...

That's exactly what README.source is for:
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-readmesource
-- 
Regards,
Feri.