Bas,
On 10/09/2016 12:02 AM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> I've prepared a branch with changes to modernize the postgis packaging:
>
> https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-grass/postgis.git/log/?h=modern-packaging
Thanks for bringing this up again. Looks good from a first glance.
However, I just moved to a new home and am unlikely to look at it in
more detail within the next few days.
I gave this branch a spin on the pgapt Jenkins build farm.
> The goal of these changes is to bring the postgis package in line with
> the other packages maintained within the Debian GIS team.
(As a side note, I'm still wondering if Debian GIS is the right team for
a PostgreSQL extension. But modernized packaging is a good thing in any
case.)
> The control files are restructured with cme while preserving the changes
> for PGDG. The separate lines for dependencies greatly increase
> readability and gives cleaner diffs as a bonus.
Good. Agreed.
> The rules file is switched to use the dh sequencer to not need explicit
> calls to the various dh_* utilities. This added dh_perl amongst others
> for which the substitution variable was added to the -scripts package.
I'm worried about backwards-compatibility, here.
At least the current build already failed building the source package
for wheezy, trusty and precise:
dpkg-source: error: syntax error in source/debian/control at line 27:
continued value line not in field
dpkg-buildpackage: error: dpkg-source -i -I --before-build source gave
error exit status 25
> I've verified that both binary-arch & binary-indep builds still work.
> And also verified the build in a cowbuilder chroot with the PGDG
> repository enabled, but I suspect that the Jenkins build environment may
> differ somewhat.
It's hardly the build environment, but rather the fact that the package
should build from the same sources on older Debian and Ubuntu releases.
> Is there some way to do experimental builds for PGDG which won't
> automatically be published?
Yes, please ask myon@debian.org for access to that Jenkins builder.
> I'd like to merge these changes as soon as possible to get them into
> stretch, but I'd like you to confirm that they cause any adverse effects
> for PGDG as they did the first time I implemented modernized packaging
> some time ago.
Thanks.
Kind Regards
Markus Wanner