[needs-packaging] cmocka-mocks

Bug #2069875 reported by Alexandre Esse
8
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Ubuntu
Fix Released
Wishlist
Alexandre Esse

Bug Description

Currently working on elos (https://github.com/Elektrobit/elos) software packaging, the second dependency I would like to integrate into Ubuntu is cmocka-mocks (https://github.com/Elektrobit/cmocka_mocks).

cmocka-mocks is a library to mock common C functions, like libc and jsonc, for testing purposes. This collection of ready to use mocks is based on cmocka_extensions (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/2069860).

Alexandre Esse (ahresse)
Changed in ubuntu:
assignee: nobody → Alexandre Esse (ahresse)
status: New → In Progress
Revision history for this message
Loïc Minier (lool) wrote :
tags: added: needs-packaging
tags: added: pe-sponsoring-request
Revision history for this message
Brian Murray (brian-murray) wrote :

*** This is an automated message ***

This bug is tagged needs-packaging which identifies it as a request for a new package in Ubuntu. As a part of the managing needs-packaging bug reports specification, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/Specs/NeedsPackagingBugs, all needs-packaging bug reports have Wishlist importance. Subsequently, I'm setting this bug's status to Wishlist.

Changed in ubuntu:
importance: Undecided → Wishlist
tags: added: foundations-todo
Revision history for this message
Simon Chopin (schopin) wrote :

Hi Alexandre!

I did a first review of the package.

My first question is a bit global: what's the use case for this? Is it supposed to be used at build time? I think for now it would be easier to have just a -dev package that provides the headers and static libraries, and not bother with shared libraries, as those tend to just make things harder. Notably, there's an expectation of ABI stability with a libfoo0 package, which I'm guessing isn't very high on upstream's list of priorities.

After that, the rest of my remarks are pretty trivial in comparison ;)

d/changelog:
We usually don't mention all the steps in the initial package.

Maybe use dh_installdocs for the docs?

Bonus exercise: don't build the docs when using the nodocs profile (and don't pull in the dependencies for it)

Revision history for this message
Alexandre Esse (ahresse) wrote :

Thank you for your review Simon.

Here is a new version of the package with the modifications you proposed: https://launchpad.net/~nemos-team/+archive/ubuntu/archive-target/+sourcepub/16287616/+listing-archive-extra

About the changelog, since I initially took the upstream `debian.native` packaging example, I just found it relevant to list the modifications I made to it in addition to the classic `Initial release` message.

Revision history for this message
Loïc Minier (lool) wrote :

Package accepted in oracular

Changed in ubuntu:
status: In Progress → Fix Released
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.