> On Tuesday 04 August 2009 10:50:20 pm George Danchev wrote: > > The package looks solid, everything is put in place and I was unable > > to find any flaws other than boring nitpicking: > > > > * the short description of the libyajl1-dbg should read `... - > > debugging symbols', instead of ` - library documentation'. Probably a > > copy/paste ;-) * examples would help users to bootstrap more easily > > (optional) * a watch file would help package monitoring > > * send man pages upstream along with the patch of `PIC does not make > > sense for static libs' ;-) > > OK. I updated the package on mentors to take care of those issues. > Upstream already plans to remove the non-free RFC in future releases; > I'll send along the other stuff too. As for examples, json_reformat and > json_verify are partly intended to show what you can do in < 200 lines, > so I copied those to an 'examples' directory in libyajl-doc. Yes, that makes sense. I don't have any additional comments, so package uploaded. It will hang in Debian's NEW queue for a while until FTP masters manage to look at it and give it a go. > > * Why the integer test fails on 64-bit machines? Aligning issues? > > One test fails if yajl can cope with 64-bit integers. > > Discussion here: > http://github.com/lloyd/yajl/issues#issue/1 > > > * I imagine that at this stage the API is stable enough and drifts > > should be highly unlikely, is that assumption correct for yajl? > > Yes, I believe so. Based on the above discussion, upstream sounds > careful and deliberate about that. True, upstreams seems to care about the library widespread use. Also, this would be a good chance to test icheck usefulness (C interface ABI/API checker). > > Let's give some days to the rest interested to look at that library > > package, to see if they can find any flaws. Then we can upload. > > OK, thanks! Thanks for your work! -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.