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

[Alessandro Ghedini]

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 07:08:47PM +0200, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> On 08/06/2011 11:13, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 05:22:01PM +0200, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
> >> 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).
> > 
> > Ping?
> 
> 
> debian/rules:4: /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/autoreconf.mk: No such file or directory
> 
> That file is in dh-autoreconf package, which is not in the build-dependencies.
> 
> Try building with git-buildpackage --git-pbuilder=/usr/bin/git-pbuilder
> (see http://wiki.debian.org/cowbuilder for a quick cowbuilder setup).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that dh-autoreconf has been in 
Build-Depends since the first commits to git [0], and it builds in a 
clean chroot here. Am I missing something?

Cheers

[0] http://git.debian.org/?p=collab-maint/libeio.git;f=debian/control;h=e13bfc89c#l4

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