[Pkg-rust-maintainers] Comments regarding rustc_1.1.0+dfsg1-1_amd64.changes

Angus Lees gus at debian.org
Tue Jul 21 05:53:33 UTC 2015

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 at 19:46 Thorsten Alteholz <
ftpmaster at ftp-master.debian.org> wrote:

> Hi Angus,
> I marked your package for accept, but please take care of some (new?)
> lintian errors.
> Thanks!
>  Thorsten
Rust packagers:

Most of the new lintian errors[1] have come from the fact that the dylibs
are now in a standard path, and so lintian is actually checking them now.

not-binnmuable-any-depends-any, weak-library-dev-dependency are my mistake
and were easily fixed (will push to alioth shortly).
privacy-breach-logo just required some additional sed bludgeoning - also
fixed and en route to alioth.


shlib-with-non-pic-code (for i386 only?) has me stumped.

I've stared at the i386 build logs[2], and also compared them to the x86_64
logs from when I built the 1.1.0+dfsg1-1 packages, and I can't find any
object file(s) that were built without -fPIC :/

Note jemalloc gets built with and without PIC - afaics, we only use
jemalloc_pic.a.  The only i386/x86_64 difference that stands out so far is
mk/cfg/i686-unknown-linux-gnu.mk appends $(CFLAGS) in a few more places
than in x86_64 - but I don't think this should matter...

Can you take a look too and see what you can find?  I think my next step is
to try an i386 build locally and see what I can learn from the actual
object files.


Also, the two regarding the copyright file
look ok to me.  Could someone more fluent in the debian/copyright syntax
help me understand what the error is here?


 - Gus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-rust-maintainers/attachments/20150721/e4559b76/attachment.html>

More information about the Pkg-rust-maintainers mailing list