On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 07:34:37PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote : > Le mardi 05 juillet 2005 ? 18:27 +0200, Jean-Philippe Garcia Ballester a > ?crit : > > I see your point. I tried to fix that. Hope I didn't do it wrong > > (again). If someone could check... > > I don't understand your modifications. There are differences in the > Makefile.in and configure files, but no differences in the Makefile.am > and configure.ac files. Also, I don't understand the shlibs.local file. > The modifications in Makefile.in were made to change the SONAME and filename of the library (now libssh-0.11.so.0). I don't remember changing anything in the configure file. There is indeed no changes in Makefile.am and configure.ac files since they don't exist. The shlibs.local was designed to be the shlibs file for the package, but was useless since the shlibs file used is the one created by dh_makeshlibs. > > Should the package name contain the version number? (like the libssl > > packages) > > Yes, it should be called libssh-0.11-0. I'd rather call it libssh0.11 or libssh-0.11, since the -0 is the package version number (I took the libssl0.9.7 package as example : package name is libssl0.9.7, package version is 0.9.7g-1, and package filename is libssl0.9.7_0.9.7g-1_i386.deb). Regards, -- Jean-Philippe Garcia Ballester
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature