[Pkg-javascript-devel] Packaging libeio (used by nodejs and libio-aio-perl) separately
Jérémy Lal
kapouer at melix.org
Mon Jun 27 10:14:23 UTC 2011
On 27/06/2011 11:55, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
> 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?
Right, it's git-buildpackage calling "debuild -d clean" so it did not
check for missing dependencies.
I've built nodejs 0.4.8 against libeio1 and all tests pass.
The package seems all right to me, i'll be happy to upload a new nodejs version
depending on it.
Could you do the RFS and cc it to the perl and javascript-devel lists ?
Jérémy.
More information about the Pkg-javascript-devel
mailing list