On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 12:40:45PM +0100, Tom Parkin wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 15:17:11 +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote: > > Is this package also supposed to be used as a library? If so please > > provide a library package as well. > > Yes it is. > .... > I'm not really sure of the semantics of both v.s. combined. > > My assumption is that the primary usecase of the package should > probably dictate what comes first in the control file. Primary usecase is what defined the source package name. If it is supposed to be mainly a library, then the naming should be golang-github-foo, and foo otherwise. If it should be used as a library, the "source package" name also needs to be changed. In your case, the source package name (the one mentioned in d/ch and d/control is go-l2tp however just the salsa repo name is different). > Naively, "both" would mean we don't need to rename the repo :-) and > fits more coherently with the upstream's intentions. go-l2tp is > really supposed to be a library for L2TP applications, and kl2tpd > et al are demo apps as much as anything else, albeit useful ones. > > However, from a pragmatic perspective while I know go-l2tp does have > users building apps around it, as of now the goal of packaging go-l2tp > for Debian is to make nm-l2tp's life easier, as nm-l2tp uses kl2tpd > as its default L2TP daemon. So from that perspective "combined" > seems a more natural fit. > > I'm not sure what to do for the best here. I mean, upto you. It'd probably make sense to think of what is the major component, or what people are more interested in consuming. If it's an application then I'll just rename it on salsa. Otherwise it needs other fixes as I stated above. Ping on the list and maybe CC me when you're done. I'm a Debian Developer and can help with sponsoring. > [1]. https://people.debian.org/~stapelberg/2015/07/27/dh-make-golang.html Best, Nilesh
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature