I'm generally OK with the renaming to follow the library style guide. I do find it a little particular (and awkward) though for two reasons:
1. the libsolsys1-1, and libsossys2-1 are somewhat awkward although if that is the standard for naming packaghed libs that have a number as part of their name, then it is what it is.
2. For libsolsys1-1 and libsolsys2-1, the package names hide that these belong to the supernovas package (that they are optional packages thereof). I guess that's OK, since the dependencies are there. Perhaps you could add a 'Suggests' to libsupernovas1, so they are more easily discoverable by users who might be wondering what packages might provide the legacy functionalities...
I'm curious, how did you manage to import the upstream with the same version '1.0.1-2'? I have utterly failed doing that even though I wasted a full day trying as I might. :-)
Finally, I noticed you removed the version dependence on doxygen. Maybe that's OK, but the fact is that older versions of doxygen will caugh up an error with the Doxyfile configuration, as it contains settings that are not supported in earlier releases of doxygen. (If you do change your mind on specifying a minimum version, you probably want it to be the current one, which is 1.10, I think).
cheers, -- Attila. On 6/2/24 6:02 PM, Nilesh Patra wrote:
Hi, On Sun, Jun 02, 2024 at 04:28:26PM +0200, Attila Kovacs wrote:Thanks. Your changes look good to me. I like the <!cross> feature, and if the overrides in rules do what you expect them to do, then that's good by me also.I have made several changes to your package and pushed to salsa. Many fixes, changing to lib style guide[1] and so on. If you think they look, I will sponsor this upload. [1]: https://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html Best, Nilesh