[SCM] Debian packaging for jack-audio-connection-kit branch, master.jackd2, updated. debian/1.9.4+svn3842-2-41-g15d16a4

[Reinhard Tartler]

On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 00:34:47 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
>
>>@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
>> -include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/upstream-tarball.mk
>> include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/utils.mk
>> include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/debhelper.mk
>>+include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/patchsys-quilt.mk
>> include /usr/share/cdbs/1/class/makefile.mk
>
> ...because adding above cause the package to need to build-depend on a
> few additional packages.

quilt, yes. is this a problem?

>
>> debian/stamp-waf-configure:
>>        waf configure --prefix=/usr $(MIXED_FLAGS) --firewire --alsa --classic --dbus
>>        touch $@
>>-clean::
>>+clean:: unpatch
>>        rm -f debian/stamp-waf-configure
>
> I recommend to keep unrelated routines separate, even if it causes the
> rules file to be slightly larger, and document unclear intends:
>
>
>         touch $@
>  clean::
>         rm -f debian/stamp-waf-configure
> +
> +# Un-apply patches left behind with source format 3.0 (quilt)
> patches
> +clean:: unpatch
> +

ok

> Also, above always un-applies, not only when using git - I am uncertain
> if that will cause problems somewhere.  Not sure waht that might be,
> just worried...

okay, then I'll need to extract some logic from patchsys-quilt.mk 

>>While we are at it, I'd suggest this change as well for Format 3.0
>>packages in general:
>>--- /dev/null
>>+++ b/debian/source/options
>>@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
>>+# use debian/patches/debian-changes as automatic patch
>>+single-debian-patch
>
> Why?  I would consider autogenerated patches an error anyway, so do not
> care about its naming.

The manpage recommends it this way, as when working in a VCS, the
version number, and therefore the file name of the generated patch is
meaningless if not wrong. Foring a stable filename ensures that changes
go into a single patch.

If we consider these autogenerated patches an error, this way we can
extend debian/rules to check for existance of this file, and abort with
an meaningful error message.


>> Ok, I think we agree here. Let's start with a wishlist bug against
>> devscripts for licensecheck2dep5. Do you want to file or shall I?
>
> Go ahead and do it.

See http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=472199

>> However, we mustn't forget to add our conclusions to
>> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMultimedia/DevelopPackaging
>
> Hmm.  I am unsure what is policy and what is suggestions and what is my
> stubbornness in what we've discussed here - so please you do that, ok?

Well, that's the problem. Now that we allow both cdbs and debhelper,
both format 1.0 and 3.0 patches, the page now becomes terribly
convoluted. I fear we need more discussion to streamline what we
actually want.

I could imagine that we agree on a default workflow, which is applied to
all packages but exceptions, and list the excepted packages there.

-- 
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4