Re: RFS: ustr
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 01:07:16PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> first thing I can recommend: Don't use cdbs for that. That just doesn't
> work for building proper library packages.
Must mention, that cdbs uses debhelper for almost everything.
> You also want to read
> http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html
Thanks a lot. I didn't catch this guide before. I printed this guide and
am going to read it.
> and
> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html#s-libraries
I Red already.
> After reading the second link you should realize that you need to build
> the static library with other options than the normal .so (hint: -fPIC,
> also check for -D_REENTRANT)
It seems to me, that -D_REENTRANT is missing in upstream Makefile.
Thanks.
> >> * 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.
Ok.
Debuging symbols are already there
libustr-1.0-1-dbg
I will remove
libustr-debug-1.0-1
libustr-debug-dev
Regards
--
Zito
Reply to: