Re: camsource -- a modularized and multithreaded webcam-streaming software
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 07:45:28PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> You may generate the devices in postinst without asking the user, you
> just have to depend on makedev.
I am not sure wether this should be done. I am thinking of devfs-users
(or does makedev handle this?) or users who don't want to stream video,
but e.g. screenshots of their desktop which can be handled bei camsource
too. All of them don't need the video-devices to be created. (I did,
thats why I included it in the README ;)
> About README.Debian:
> | usermod -G video <username>
> I'd suggest "adduser <username> video" instead, it really only _adds_
> the user to the group.
Sure, thanks. After 10 years of unix I've just learned a new
adduser-option after keeping removing myself from auxiliary groups
while trying to add one ;)
> The build-depends aren't strict enough dh_install in debhelper 4.0.2
> does not understand -list-missing or autodest.
iek, I have to go to the Changelog for debhelper to check those :(
Changed dependency to debhelper (>= 4.1.22)
> If you are providing are shared library and expect other programs to
> link against it, you'll need to provide a shlibs-file, e.g. by using
I don't think other programs would benefit from the plugins to
camsource. Because the shared libraries are limited (IMHO) to camsource
I included them into the main deb and not into a special
Chapter 8.6 of the policy tells me:
... Thus, when a package is built which contains any shared
libraries, it must provide a shlibs file for other packages to use,
and when a package is built which contains any shared libraries or
compiled binaries, it must run dpkg-shlibdeps on these to determine
the libraries used and hence the dependencies needed by this package.
But 10.2 says:
Such files [e.g. plugins] are exempt from the rules that govern
ordinary shared libraries.
Can I ignore the above 8.6-statement then or is it better to just enable
dh_makeshlibs anyway? (Just did that, but don't know if it is okay this
way? - I'd better listen to the "binaries only first package"-speaks ;)
> Otherwise nice first shot, afaict just from browsing the diff ;-)
Thanks. I've updated the packages regarding your suggestions, they
can be found in http://www.b-a-l-u.de/debian/camsource/
I did not update the version of this new build. What is the common
way to handle such "not yet uploaded 'beta' packages"? Give them version
numbers below 1, simply ignore versioning?