[Pkg-pascal-devel] FPC 2.6.4 is released.

[Abou Al Montacir]

Hi Peter,

On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 20:23 +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
> On 27-03-14 20:09, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> > As I can see in the link, we may repackage in order to get the name of
> > the parent directory conform to the standard,
> 
> Interesting. That is not how I read it. As I read it, IF you repack THEN
> you should (not must) have the parent conform the standard. This is at
> all not a reason to repack.

> > Also removing many .o could reduce the size.
> 
> I think this is the ONLY reason we have.
This a quite good reason.

> > In the other hand, Makefiles are generated during the build process
> > anyway, and thus should be remove if we repack.
> 
> No. The link explicitly states to not remove upstream makefiles.
The link talks about the build system. For FPC, the build system is not
Makefile, but rather the Makefile.fpc. This is like autoconf. So we are
keeping the build system. the reason we remove make files, is that if
you regenerate them, then you will have changes that are not in
d/p/*.patch

So I definitely think we are allowed to do this, otherwise dpkg-source
will detect untracked changes (date comment in Makefile) and abort
build.

> > This avoids warnings about missing makefile after clean.
> 
> The current clean does not work if a build is aborted halfway. So we
> need to fix it. I also don't understand what you mean, did you ever have
> a warning that the Makefile was missing?

Do you see?
dpkg-source: warning: ignoring deletion of file fpcsrc/rtl/palmos/m68k/libcrt.a
dpkg-source: warning: ignoring deletion of file fpcsrc/rtl/palmos/m68k/crt0.o
...
We got the same think for make files.

Cheers,
Abou Al Montacir,
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 230 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-pascal-devel/attachments/20140327/607b5187/attachment.sig>