Re: RFS: libthai 0.1.9-2 (updated package)
On Jan 31, 2008 11:19 AM, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.1.9-2
> of my package "libthai".
Maybe libthai0/libthai-data shouldn't have any docs (README/TODO/etc)
in them since those are mostly automatically installed, instead it
should go in the -dev package and the -doc package.
Good to see you are using a symbols file, mole says you need different
symbols files for different arches:
I also note that the seedsymbols script indicates that some functions
have been removed, but the ABI has not been increased.
The -doc package installs stuff to /usr/share/doc/libthai0-doc,
shouldn't it be /usr/share/doc/libthai-doc?
Your shlibs says >= 0.1.7 but the max version in your symbols file is 0.1.6.
I'm not sure what the machine-readable copyright proposal says, but I
expected to see copies of the "this is GPL" blurbs from the source
code in debian/copyright
I don't see filenames in the Licence line in the copyright proposal.
I think there are supposed to be commas between the authors and each
author should have their own copyright years?
Why do you copy config.sub/guess in clean rather than in configure?
CFLAGS doesn't seem to be passed to configure?
Please rewrite the descriptions considering the audience for each of
them. libthai0/libthai-data will always be automatically installed,
libthai-dev will sometimes be automatically installed (build-dep) and
libthai-doc should be only installed by humans. libthai0/-data could
have a one-line description, the amount of info in the -dev and -doc
descriptions should reflect who will be looking for them.
Tip: $(MAKE) -C foo works too