[pkg-go] my first pkg-go package: golang-petname

Jonathan Dowland jmtd at debian.org
Thu Sep 29 15:11:39 UTC 2016

Thanks for your detailed response! I've re-ordered your points in reply so that
I can group them according to response:

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 10:52:06PM +0000, Potter, Tim (HPE Linux Support) wrote:
> * remove unneeded lintian overrides
> * update Vcs-* fields
> * set section and priority to "devel" and "extra"
> * set homepage to project github page

Done, thanks for noticing

> * add upstream and pristine-tar branches (running "gbp import-dsc
>   --pristine-tar" should do the trick)

Will do (once we've resolved the source pkg name, see below)

> * remove unneeded override_dh_install target from r/rules
> * are d/*.install files necessary?  I thought the binary and manage were
>   installed automatically by other parts of dh
> * is dh-exec used anymore? if not remove from B-Ds

Grouping these three points together: w/o the .install file for the lib package,
the lib package ends up empty.  w/o the override in d/rules, dh_install fails:

>    dh_install -O--buildsystem=golang
> dh_install: Cannot find (any matches for) "usr/lib/" (tried in "." and "debian/tmp")
> dh_install: golang-github-dustinkirkland-golang-petname-dev missing files: usr/lib/
> dh_install: missing files, aborting

The install file for the binary package performs a rename (petname => golang-petname)
which seems to be the way dh_install's manpage recommends this is achieved, which is
why there's a dh-exec dependency.

> * maybe add remark about d/update-wordlists.sh to d/README.source?

Done, thanks

> * rename git repo and source package to
>   golang-github-dustinkirkland-golang-petname
> The source and binary package names are a bit irksome.  Technically the
> source package should be golang-github-dustinkirckland-golang-petname and the
> binary package the same, but that's such an awful name for a binary package -
> golang-petname is much better.  That leaves:
> source package: golang-github-dustinkirckland-golang-petname
> package with binary: golang-petname
> dev package: golang-github-dustinkirckland-golang-petname-dev
> Which I think isn't too bad.

Is renaming the source package really needed? I just scanned over the
packaging.html again and the naming scheme is only mentioned in the "Library
(or binary + library) packages" section, and is ambiguous in that later
references are just to "package name" rather than "source package name" or
"library package name", but my interpretation of it was that the naming is only
necessary for the library binary package (which is the thing which will appear
in dependency lines for other packages).

If we should/do rename source packages for lib+binary packages, then I will
adjust packages.html to make that clearer (but I lack the rationale to add :))

Jonathan Dowland
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-go-maintainers/attachments/20160929/f511ccc3/attachment.sig>

More information about the Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list