I just made debian package of ClanLib 2.0.4 .

[Nozzy Nozzy <nozzy123nozzy@gmail.com>]

Gonéri Le Bouder wrote,

> Yes we should upgrade to clanlib1. A good reason I see is that
> clanlib1 builds fine
> on kFreeBSD.

For my hobby, I just made debian package of ClanLib 2.0.4.
In my environment (debian sid i386/i686), 
this package works fine.Example souce codes in Clanlib 2.0.4 
almost work fine.

I'd be interested in contributing this package to debian.

[Q] Could I contribute this package? 
   If it is ok, what should I do next?

 My current status is ,

  1)  This package (I made) produces following 4 binary package
      according to the way of clanlib_0.8.1 package,

        + clanlib-2.0-doc_2.0.4-1_all.deb
        + libclanapp-2.0_2.0.4-1_i386.deb
        + libclansdl-2.0_2.0.4-1_i386.deb
         + libclanlib-2.0-dev_2.0.4-1_i386.deb

   2) All libraries in  libclanapp-2.0,libclansdl-2.0,
     libclanlib-2.0-dev have separated so names from clanlib_0.8.1.
    ( ex. libclanCore-2.0.a, libclanCore-2.0.so and so on. )
     All include files in libclanlib-2.0-dev are stored
     in /usr/include/Clanlib-2.0. The pkgconfig also tell 
     correct location.

   3) 'clanlib-2.0-doc' has html documents of Overview/ and
     Reference/,which generated in compiling time,too.
      Examples/,Utilitiy/ and Resource/ are also included.
 
   4) I've not contact upstream developper of ClanLib. 
      Currently I just made the debian package. 

    5) Checking of pbuild is ok.Lintian claims only
      'package-name-doesnt-match-sonames' warning. However,
       dh_gencontrol refuses to work for the same name of so names. 
       It is because the name of package contain 
       big letter.I don't have any good idea to avoid this warning.
 

Thanks,
 ---
 Nozzy