[Pkg-pascal-devel] Lintian errors and warnings on FPC

[Abou Al Montacir]

Hi David and Paul,

On Thu, 2022-01-20 at 08:54 +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> On 20-01-2022 03:15, David Bannon wrote:
> > > I don't think it's good to do these changes in Debian
> > 
> > I definitely agree but evidence is that quite a lot of them are "will
> > not be fixed" upstream. I am pretty sure I can fix the real spelling
> > issues. Tedious but necessary. The "national-encoding" are much harder.
> > A small number can be fixed (IMHO) but most are use of accented
> > characters, mostly in contributor's names.
> 
> Ack. But ironically these names will also show wrong on systems where 
> the there's skew between what the codepoint the character was entered in 
> and with which it's displayed. But I'm not going to fight this point.
I personally don't care about this code page issue, as long as the file
compiles.
So let's override.
> 
> > The FPC devs are unwilling to see the ISO-8859-xx files converted to
> > UTF8 because FPC still supports many Operating Systems that does not
> > know about UTF8. And there is no appetite for munging people's names.
> > So, there is no upstream solution and, I suggest, a debian patch
> > approach may just compromise cross compilers built from the Debian
> > source so, its override or nothing !
> 
> Override it is in my opinion. It's not worth the effort.
+1
> 
> > Hardening is a problem with some of the binaries, FPC does not ship
> > hardened binaries, if Debian wants hardening, thats a debian fix I am
> > afraid.
> 
> Totally agree. But please don't jump through hoops here. It's good to 
> have hardening, but if unsupported upstream, it may also be an uphill 
> battle (I don't know).
I think upstream would accept patches on this. I can lobby for it on the FPC
developers mailing list.
> 
> > I will pursue the things I can change upstream and perhaps start on a
> > lintian override file. I note fpc source does not include a debian
> > directory, guessing the Lazarus people (who make the FPC debs) have
> > their own process to build.
> 
> Even if it's there, the upstream debian folder is of no relevance to us. 
> It's 100% deleted and replaced by what we have. And indeed Lazarus 
> people have a different view on how a deb should be shipped (we've had 
> some discussions/clashes in the past), so they make quite different 
> choices. Let's fix our own packaging (at least initially).
I used to be the owner of Debian folder on FPC reposiotry.
However, since I became DD, I decided to not maintain FPC debs upstream anymore
and I argued on upstream side that I can ensure Debian official packages are
ready a few days after the sources are released. I think this is better as it
help me focus on only one packaging.
-- 
Cheers,
Abou Al Montacir

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-pascal-devel/attachments/20220120/bad6e35b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-pascal-devel/attachments/20220120/bad6e35b/attachment.sig>