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

[Michael Hudson-Doyle]

On 30 September 2016 at 04:11, Jonathan Dowland <jmtd at debian.org> wrote:

> 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:
>

Take /usr/lib out of the .install file, and remove the override. The ubuntu
packaging of this package tries to both support building shared libraries
and building not shared libraries from the same source package and has some
weird bits because of this.


> >    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).
>

Yeah, I think it's fine as is.


> 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
> :))
>

Cheers,
mwh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-go-maintainers/attachments/20160930/a5f16044/attachment.html>