On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 10:24:29PM +0200, Jean-Philippe Garcia Ballester wrote : > 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 also did some modifications for creating both shared and static library, and installing files correctly. > I don't remember changing anything in the configure file. The modifications in configure file were made since the upstream compiled an example binary which I think has nothing to do in the package. > 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