[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFS: ustr



On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:07:16 +0100
Bernd Zeimetz <bernd@bzed.de> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> first thing I can recommend: Don't use cdbs for that. That just doesn't
> work for building proper library packages.

Bunkum!!!

CDBS is fine for all packages if the maintainer chooses to use it.

I maintain a couple of libraries with CDBS and a couple with debhelper.
There are no problems with using either method, providing they are
used properly.

Take a look at the source for libqof1 and tell me that CDBS cannot work
for a *proper* library package.

> >> * Linda says:
> >>
> >> $ linda ustr_1.0.1-1_i386.changes
> >> W: libustr-1.0-1; The library libustr is not in a shlibs file.
> >> W: libustr-debug-1.0-1; The library libustr-debug is not in a shlibs file.
> >> E: libustr-debug-1.0-1; Binary /usr/lib/libustr-debug-1.0.so.1.0.1
> >> contains unneeded section comment.
> >> E: libustr-debug-1.0-1; Binary /usr/lib/libustr-debug-1.0.so.1.0.1 is
> >> not stripped.
> > 
> > I doubt about worthiness to have `-debug' packages now. Should I exclude
> > libustr-debug-1.0-1 and libustr-debug-dev? If someone needs to debug
> > ustr, he can build a debug library himself and so have the sources...
> 
> Chances are good that a -dbg package would make more sense then this
> debug library weirdness.

And is soon to be mandated by policy.

CDBS will do this for you if you create the entry in debian/control.

-- 

Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

Attachment: pgpryFsGmSJfS.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: