On 2010-11-13 10:58, David Paleino wrote:
> IMHO, the name of your project is rather too generic ("libgis"). It should be
> changed to something more descriptive, but that's your choice as upstream at
> the end.
>
> Apart from this, you're very welcome to maintain it under the Debian GIS Team
> umbrella. To join us, please join the pkg-grass [0] project on
> alioth.debian.org.
>
> [0]: https://alioth.debian.org/projects/pkg-grass/
I've never been good with names :) I agree that it is a little generic,
but I would rather leave it the way it is. I can't find any conflicts in
Contents-i386 and googling for "libgis" seems to indicate that it's a
fairly unique name, apart from a subsection of GRASS.
Maintaining it under the "Debian GIS Team" would be nice. That website
looks pretty GRASS-specific though, would it be suitable for a non-GRASS
related package?
> - In debian/control, you misinterpreted the meaning of Vcs-* fields. Those
> should point to the location where the Debian packaging is kept, while you
> pointed at the upstream repository. You can choose to maintain the debian/
> dir there as well, or host it on Alioth within the Debian GIS Team (which
> would be better for team-maintainance).
Oops, I've removed the links for now and will add "proper" links once
version control is set up for the debian files. Alioth seems like a good
place, I'll look into how that works.
> - Why is libgis-doc an arch:any package? I didn't check its contents, but I
> suspect it should be arch:all. ;)
Fixed :)
> - You might want to use DEP-5 format for your debian/copyright. Read more at
> http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ . It's entirely optional, and it won't be a
> stopper if you leave it like it is now.
That looks like a nice format, I've change debian/copyright accordingly.
> - In libgis-dev.install , please avoid installing *.a files. We (as Debian) are
> deprecating them, and installing them in a brand new package is a bad thing.
Removed.
> - Your package doesn't seem to be lintian clean ;-) -- you pasted lintian's
> output in debian/lintian.txt, and there it clearly says to a) close an ITP
> bug and b) use a proper name for the binary (point 2 of my comments). Next
> time please read it ;)
The first lintian file I generated was actually much bigger ;)
a) Fixed now (per Benoît's email) #603393 for reference
b) I wanted to discuss this one a little further before trying to
correct it. (See below)
Another point of interest is that mentors.debian.net says:
intian warnings: none
intian errors: none
Even though there were some warnings. I copied the `lintian clean'
message from the template it generated, but I'm not sure if it generated
the `lintian clean' part or if that was hard coded.
> - Library packaging in Debian has to follow certain policies. The binary
> package you're producing should be named "libgis<SONAME>" (i.e. libgis0, or
> similar). This ensures that any dependant package depends on the correct
> version of the library.
>
> - Always in the lintian warning, it says you're missing a symbols file. Since
> it's a C project, I strongly suggest you to make one (I personally dislike
> C++ symbols files, but that's just me). Please read more at
> http://wiki.debian.org/UsingSymbolsFiles
(I wanted to address these comments together)
Personally, I'm not too concerned with the symbols file, or library
versioning at all for that matter. Now, I had better clarify before
someone bashes me with the libtool manual ;)
As I mentioned in my initial email, libgis was developed to support
another program called AWeather. Since AWeather is the only program that
currently uses libgis and it depends on the latest version anyway, I
don't expect there to be very many issues with library versioning.
That being said, if/when I hear about other people wanting to use libgis
in their own programs (which I hope they will) I will start caring much
more about library versioning, a stable API, etc.
Anyway, I suspect some library versioning will be required, but I think
doing as little as possible would (for now) be the most efficient way to
go. Does this sound correct for package names, or can I do without the
0.4?
- libgis-0.4-0
- libgis-0.4-dev
- libgis-0.4-bin
- libgis-0.4-doc
(using -version-info 0:0:0 -release 0.4.1)
Thanks for all the comments. I'll build and post another set of packages
this evening with these (and other) changes.
Attachment:
pgphIxLejly9A.pgp
Description: PGP signature