Am Freitag, den 25.09.2009, 13:32 +0200 schrieb Josselin Mouette: > > [...] > > 1. Package layout > > GObject-introspection packages provide introspection data > in /usr/share/gir-1.0/Foo-X.Y.gir, and the > optional /usr/lib/girepository-1.0/Foo-X.Y.typelib. > > The packages should be architecture-dependent. Only the typelib file actually is meant to be architecture-dependent (right, the GIR file could be arch-dep too if the headers and API parts of the sources (GObject properties/signals) are different from arch to arch. But who does that?!). Also the GIR file is only meant for build time things so it could simply be placed in the -dev packages (as I've done so far). The typelib file is another issue though... > 2. Naming scheme > > The package should be named gir1.0-foo-X.Y. For example, the package > containing WebKit-1.0.gir will be named gir1.0-webkit-1.0. > > Giant repositories of dozens of unrelated introspection data should be > avoided. (Under this rationale, gobject-introspection-repository will be > split.) However, related libraries that are known to evolve together can > live in the same package (example: Gst*-0.10). > > If, alternatively, the introspection data belongs in the same source > package as the library it references, it can be put in the same binary > package. In this case, it must feature a Provides: field corresponding > to the name of the introspection data. For example, libfoo2.0-2 > containing libfoo-2.0.so.2 and Foo-2.0.gir must provide gir1.0-foo-2.0. Putting the typelib files in the shared library packages will create conflicts for soname changes. Not good (I know I placed them there in some packages). Creating a new package just for the typelib file is not good either ;) > [...] Everything else sounds good to me.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil