On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:07:16 +0100 Bernd Zeimetz <bernd@bzed.de> wrote: > Hi, > > first thing I can recommend: Don't use cdbs for that. That just doesn't > work for building proper library packages. Bunkum!!! CDBS is fine for all packages if the maintainer chooses to use it. I maintain a couple of libraries with CDBS and a couple with debhelper. There are no problems with using either method, providing they are used properly. Take a look at the source for libqof1 and tell me that CDBS cannot work for a *proper* library package. > >> * Linda says: > >> > >> $ linda ustr_1.0.1-1_i386.changes > >> W: libustr-1.0-1; The library libustr is not in a shlibs file. > >> W: libustr-debug-1.0-1; The library libustr-debug is not in a shlibs file. > >> E: libustr-debug-1.0-1; Binary /usr/lib/libustr-debug-1.0.so.1.0.1 > >> contains unneeded section comment. > >> E: libustr-debug-1.0-1; Binary /usr/lib/libustr-debug-1.0.so.1.0.1 is > >> not stripped. > > > > I doubt about worthiness to have `-debug' packages now. Should I exclude > > libustr-debug-1.0-1 and libustr-debug-dev? If someone needs to debug > > ustr, he can build a debug library himself and so have the sources... > > Chances are good that a -dbg package would make more sense then this > debug library weirdness. And is soon to be mandated by policy. CDBS will do this for you if you create the entry in debian/control. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpXemFF9n272.pgp
Description: PGP signature