Re: RFS: libsmf
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 06:14:25PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> A review:
Thanks for your review,
>
> The first 3 symbols in the symbols file look like they might be
> internal symbols that should not be exported, is that the case?
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Visibility
It seems tha the whole file src/smf_private.h shoul not export symbols,
so I will make a patch to add
#pragma GCC visibility push(hidden)
...
#pragma GCC visibility pop
and check it with upstreamer (maybe he prefers another approach).
>
> The SONAME should not be added to the -dev or utils packages. I'd
> recommend naming the utils package smf-utils
>
Ok, I will change the names.
> Why does the -dev package depend on libc-dev?
>
>From the "Debian Library Packaging guide" (a non official document)
http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html#id291957
"The -DEV package would usually declare Depends: relationship on
all -DEV packages for libraries that the library package directly
depends upon, with the specific SONAME version that the library
package is linked against. This includes libc-dev. [5]
The dependency is required to make things such as statically
linked libraries to work, and C header file inclusions.
...
[5] A package should depend on libc-dev, without versioned
depends, or generate ... Not all architectures have libc-dev as
libc6-dev."
I saw that packages like libgpm-dev does this.
Is this wrong (or deprecated)?
> I find it interesting that upstream uses readline (GPL) rather than
> editline (BSD).
Thanks for your help.
--
Josué M. Abarca S.
Vos mereces Software Libre.
PGP key 4096R/70D8FB2A 2009-06-17
fingerprint = B3ED 4984 F65A 9AE0 6511 DAF4 756B EB4B 70D8 FB2A
Reply to: