Re: RFS: iulib (5th attempt)
Le Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 12:09:32AM +0200, Jeffrey Ratcliffe a écrit :
> 2009/7/18 Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>:
> > I found some issues in the latest version of your package:
> >
> > - The build target can not been invoked twice in a row because of the mv
> > commands (you know what to do, you did it right for the clean target).
>
> dh7 won't invoke the build target more than once, so I think this is OK.
Hi Jeffrey,
our tools do not invoke the build target twice in a row, but real people
sometimes have a good reason to do. For instance, I tried to build iulib it did
not work because I was missing dependancies, and when I installed them and
called the build target again, it triggered the bug discussed above. A good
makefile should be resilient to this.
Talking about dependancies, since there are only three versions of the libtool
package in circulation, you can probably depend on versions higher than Lenny.
Alternatively, you can support both: it looks easy. It would be especially
useful if you think that there are chances your package would be backported.
If the scons migration for the 0.4 version implies to drop libtool, you do not
need to put too much energy into this…
A much more problematic issue is the binary dependancies of libiulib0. You have
devised a long list by hand, but it is not accurate for Sid, which is the
target of your package. There is at least one error: libavcodec51 does not
exist there. Do you have evidence that ${shlibs:Depends} is not enough?
> > - The dependancy of libiulib-dev should be versioned on libiuli0. The symbolic
> > link /usr/lib/libiulib.so -> libiulib.so.0.0.0 will break otherwise.
>
> Isn't this could be something that lintian should check for, along
> with that .la files should be in -dev?
Probably. Maybe you can submit a whishlist bug, or if you have time, try to
write such a check.
PS: do you know how to write a symbols control file? (me not).
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
http://charles.plessy.org
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Reply to: