Bug#801446: epiphany-browser: reproducible build: keep debian/branding.conf.in (with patch)

[Jérémy Lal]

2015-10-10 11:23 GMT+02:00 Michael Biebl <biebl at debian.org>:

> Hi Jérémy,
>
> thanks for the patch. I think the general idea is ok, but see for
> comments below:
>
>
> Am 10.10.2015 um 10:24 schrieb Jérémy Lal:
> > --- epiphany-3.18.0/debian/rules.old  2015-10-10 10:12:24.716438919 +0200
> > +++ epiphany-3.18.0/debian/rules      2015-10-10 10:16:28.467707332 +0200
> > @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@
> >               && mv epiphany-browser.sh epiphany-browser
> >
> >  binary-post-install/epiphany-browser-data::
> > -     sed -i s/@PACKAGEVERSION@/$(DEB_VERSION)/ debian/branding.conf.in
> > -     sed -i s/@DISTROID@/`lsb_release -is`/ debian/branding.conf.in
> > -     sed -i s/@DISTROVERSION@/`lsb_release -rs`/ debian/
> branding.conf.in \
> > -             && mv debian/branding.conf.in
> debian/epiphany-browser-data/usr/share/epiphany-browser/branding.conf
> > +     sed -e s/@PACKAGEVERSION@/$(DEB_VERSION)/ \
> > +         -e s/@DISTROID@/`lsb_release -is`/ \
> > +         -e s/@DISTROVERSION@/`lsb_release -rs`/ debian/
> branding.conf.in \
> > +         debian/branding.conf.in >
> debian/epiphany-browser-data/usr/share/epiphany-browser/branding.conf
>
> Why is debian/branding.conf.in specified twice here? Won't this
> duplicate the entries?
>
> Did a test-build, and indeed the result looks like:
> $ cat debian/epiphany-browser-data/usr/share/epiphany-browser/branding.conf
> [User Agent]
> Vendor=Debian
> VendorSub=unstable
> VendorComment=3.18.0-2
> [User Agent]
> Vendor=Debian
> VendorSub=unstable
> VendorComment=3.18.0-2


Oh !
Indeed, just a stupid mistake.

 Jérémy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-gnome-maintainers/attachments/20151010/10041bf6/attachment-0001.html>