eriberto at eriberto.pro.br
Mon Feb 3 12:53:27 UTC 2014
2014-02-03 Michael Prokop <mika at debian.org>:
> Thanks for your work, Eriberto.
Thanks for your effort Mika.
> I just took a quick look at it:
> * It would be good if changes would be available as stand-alone
> patches, and not have *all* changes (including debian/changelog)
> in one single large patch.
Sorry. I didn't understand what you want. I repackaged all because
this is a new upstream version.
> There are quite some changes where
> I can see only "removed" or "updated" in the changelog but
> lacking any reasoning for the change (like for example why
> maintainer scripts got removed).
Ok. As an example:
- 40_fix-typo.diff: the target file was dropped by the upstream.
- 90_fix_ldflags.diff: new configure.ac and Makefile.am upstream
files. The content is new.
- 95_fix-libewf2-detection.patch: the upstream already uses the
code in this version. The patch was based on code published in
upstream git repository.
- 96_fix_build_libewf2.patch: idem.
Do you want a description for the added patch (20_fix_spelling_errors.diff)?
Is good for you the decriptions in removed patches?
The 10, 30 and 99 patches were updated to work in new upstream
version. Basically, these patches were ajdusted because the original
lines are in different position in the new upstream code. But the
content is same. Should I write this in changelog?
> Are Christophe Monniez and Hilko Bengen (who both are in the
> Uploaders field as well) involved in the Debian packaging changes?
No. Christophe Monniez is the last maintainer and I considered he as
current. But you are right. The package was abandoned. I will keep
this package and repack each new upstream version. Hilko tested a
symlink question quickly for me but doesn't made a relevant work. I
will remove these names.
> [I don't strictly require to have the patch split into separate
> changes now that all the work has been done already, so it's more
> of a general note for the future - but I'm also not really
> comfortable with uploading it as it is right now, ftr.]
Please, explain me again your idea and I will move the world to get
this package updated quickly in Debian. I need this.
> * "Removed, after renamed, useless and empty binary libtsk10-dbg,
> because libtsk10 already is naturally 'stripped'." => I don't
> understand this one, you removed the dh_strip call, but why
> not just use "dh_strip -a -plibtsk10 --dbg-package=libtsk10-dbg"
> or so do provide useful dbg package?
dh_strip -a -plibtsk10 --dbg-package=libtsk10-dbg didn't provide any
results. The original lib is already stripped. Do ypu have a
suggestion about it?
Mika, thanks in advance for your help.
More information about the forensics-devel