Bug#755839: libidn: run dh-autoreconf to update config.{sub, guess} and {libtool, aclocal}.m4

[Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo]

2014-08-12 8:47 GMT+01:00 Simon Josefsson <address@hidden>:
> You wrote:
>
>> I just submitted a comment on mentors.d.n.
>
> Thank you!  I am aware of them, but wanted to do as minimal changes to
> the packaging as possible to fix bugs at this point.  The packaging
> should really be rewritten using dh instead, but that's a larger task
> and I don't want to do it now just before the freeze.

OK.  In the case that you didn't do this before, my experience
converting packages with different building systems and backgrounds
(e.g., autotools and cmake), and sometimes complex rules, it's a quite
painless and worthwhile process which pays off almost immediately.

debdiff-ing the _arch.changes file between versions to see if the
shlib deps are kept correctly, sizes of binaries are similar and so
on, is usually enough to see if any problem was introduced with the
changes.  Should any problems arise, there's still ~3 months until the
freeze.

But of course it's your call as maintainer, no pressure, I'm just
saying this in the case that you find it helpful.


>> Apart from that, I noticed that the package also involves Java.
>> Frankly, I am a bit wary of touching this area, since I never touched
>> other packages with Java before, and so I am completely unaware of the
>> policies in this respect -- I am not very comfortable sponsoring that.
>
> There are no changes in this area, so you are not making it any
> worse :-)   Hopefully I'll regain upload rights within a week or two (I
> got one @debian.org signature, just need another one) and can take care
> of this.

If it's a matter of only 2 weeks, I think that it's better to wait so
you do it yourself.  If for some reason this gets delayed for, let's
say, more than a month, please ping me and I'll help.

(Regarding the lintian errors, if the package does not have to go
through the NEW queue it'll probably be all right, but otherwise FTP
might reject the package on this basis).


One unrelated thing to this (but on the same topic of ports)... by
chance I saw this change reverted:
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/debian-libidn/rules?root=libidn&r1=1.25&r2=1.26

or1k is a valid architecture in dpkg now (since May or so), which I
guess that it was the reason why lintian complained.  As a person
behind this port, I would be very glad if you could reintroduce it in
the next uploads, provided that lintian does not complain about it
now.


Cheers.
-- 
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <address@hidden>