[Pkg-javascript-devel] Packaging libeio (used by nodejs and libio-aio-perl) separately

[Alessandro Ghedini]

On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 11:58:07AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On 11-06-06 at 11:28am, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 07:34:31PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > On 11-06-05 at 06:34pm, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
> > > > While updating libio-aio-perl I've noticed that both the nodejs 
> > > > and libio-aio-perl packages bundle the libeio library [0], and I 
> > > > was wondering if it makes sense to package it as a stand-alone 
> > > > package (as per Debian Policy §4.13) instead, like many other 
> > > > distributions do (Fedora, RHEL, OpenSUSE, ...).
> > > > 
> > > > I haven't tried to build libio-aio-perl (it will need some 
> > > > patches, coordinating with upstream will be sensible) or nodejs 
> > > > (this seems easier) with the stand-alone library yet, but I think 
> > > > it may be worth a try.
> > > > 
> > > > I've set-up an initial version of the libeio package on git.d.o at 
> > > > [1], (note that I've not filed an ITP for it yet, and I won't if 
> > > > we decide that the package is not needed), and I could also take 
> > > > care of it in the future if I find a sponsor, or a DD 
> > > > co-maintainer.
> > > 
> > > Makes good sense to mantain that library separately.  Great that 
> > > you've already done the initial preparations - please do go ahead 
> > > with filing an ITP for it!
> > > 
> > > If you don't mind swithing the packaging style from the current 
> > > short-form dh to CDBS, then I would be happy to help maintain it.  I 
> > > can do the transition, or I can guide you - both is fine with me.
> > > 
> > > Also fine with you keeping current packaging style and finding 
> > > someone else to sponsor/co-maintain.
> > 
> > I've done the switch to cdbs (it's in the 'cdbs' branch of the git 
> > repo), feel free to do any modifications you find appropriate (you 
> > know cdbs better then me). I'll merge into master when it's ready.
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> But why not merge right away?  That eases use of git-buildpackage (else 
> I need to explicitly tell that I use unusual branch names).

Don't know... I started with a buggy cdbs switch (it was failing to  build) 
so I moved everything to its own branch to keep 'master' working. Today I 
solved the problem and pushed the branch "as is". 

Anyway, I've now rebased into master.

> Inotice you added a .gbp.conf - that is better placed as 
> debian/gbp.conf.

Naming the conf file .gbp.conf gives us the possibility to keep it out of
the debian.tar.gz file, otherwise it is automatically included (dpkg-source
is instructed to ignore it via the debian/source/local-options file).
Given that the gbp configuration makes only sense if paired with a git 
repository, I prefer to keep it this way (it was suggested to me by one of 
my sponsors).

Anyway it's just a cosmetic thing, it really doesn't make any difference to 
me using the debian/gbp.conf way.

> Also, I dislike versioning it 3.9 unless you are pretty certain that 
> upstream CVS tags are releases, not branches. I find it more appropriate 
> that we follow the version explicitly declared in configure.ac and call 
> our unofficial release 1.0~0.cvs20110526.  Using "~" leaves room for 
> upstream official release, and "0." leaves room for eventual switching 
> to a different VCS or maybe us changing our mind with VCS versioning - 
> both without introducing an epoch.

I'm not certain of the versions on CVS... I just copied what Fedora is 
doing, but what you are proposing makes more sense. I've now modified the 
rules file and imported the new tarball in git with version 
"1.0~0.cvs20110605", from yesterday, which has some bugfixes (I've also 
tried to build nodejs with that version, and everything seems to work well).

Cheers

-- 
perl -E'$_=q;$/= @{[@_]};and s;\S+;<inidehG ordnasselA>;eg;say~~reverse'