Re: RFS: libcares
On Nov 19, 2007 6:53 PM, Robin Cornelius <robin.cornelius@gmail.com> wrote:
> Which way do you suggest I should go with the naming? I can recreate a
> c-ares package if required or stick with the libcares name.
I suggest:
source package: c-ares: because the upstream tarball is named this way
lib binary package: libcares1: because the libpkg-guide says to use
the soname in the library package name
dev binary package: libcares-dev: because release managers don't like
sonames in the dev package name
> Out of interest do you have a check-list or just use experience to spot
> issues with packages? (I am of cause aware of the various policy and
> maintainer guide documents etc.). I wonder if many of the issues you
> have pulled me up on could be made into lintian warnings? In any case I
> will use your comments to form my own check-list.
I've a partial standards document that I've mostly abandoned:
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise/Standards
Other sponsors have similar documents, some can be found from:
http://people.debian.org/~mpalmer/debian-mentors_FAQ.html
Googling on people.debian.org might find some more.
There is also:
http://wiki.debian.org/SponsorChecklist
Mostly I rely on experience and some vague sense of "elegance" or "correctness".
As far as the things I found in yr package & lintian:
copyright stuff & RELEASE-NOTES file would probably need lintian to have an AI
extra lines - this is just a minor thing, shouldn't be tested by lintian
homepage field - many upstreams are just a download site, this would be annoying
upstream source name - maybe, that would rely on the watch file
though. probably not worth the effort though since it occurs so
little.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Reply to: