Re: RFS: poco and poco-doc (updated packages) [3rd try]
On Saturday 07 June 2008, Krzysztof Burghardt wrote:
> 2008/6/6 Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org>:
> > OoO En cette nuit nuageuse du vendredi 06 juin 2008, vers 00:26,
> >
> > "Krzysztof Burghardt" <krzysztof@burghardt.pl> disait:
> >> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/poco/poco_1.3.2+dfsg1-1.dsc
> >> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/poco-doc/poco-doc_1.3.2-1.d
> >>sc
> >
> > gcc 4.3 is now the default on amd64 and i386. Therefore, I get an error
> > that I did not get previously:
>
> [...]
>
> > It is likely to be a missing include somewhere.
>
> Fixed.
Hi Krzysztof,
As a user of that package, I'm still reluctant to ship it in a shape where
lintian is not happy enough. I've read your reasoning about debug package
names you have choosen, but I still don't see a good reason not to have
package names end in -dbg, which would keep the package namespace sane enough
[1] and brings predictable names for searching on the debian package
database; these packages of course would still ship the files as they are
considered now: i.e. /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/libPocoXMLd.so.5, which would
help the linkage of projects used it that way. Also, don't forget to gzip -9
changelogs as per policy 12.7. After these are resolved I'd sponsor.
[1] that will pass through the NEW queue because of the new binary packages
being splitted-off, and I believe that ftpmaster won't be happy with the
provided names, so you might need to do it anyway, hence I suggest to avoid
the misapproach ;-)
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB
Reply to: