Re: RFS: jansson - C library for encoding, decoding and manipulating JSON data

[Alessandro Ghedini <al3xbio@gmail.com>]

Hi David,

On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 09:16:24AM -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 23:28:58 +0200, Alessandro Ghedini <al3xbio@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > It builds these binary packages:
> > libjansson4 - C library for encoding, decoding and manipulating JSON data
> > libjansson4-dev - C library for encoding, decoding and manipulating JSON data (dev)
> > libjansson4-doc - C library for encoding, decoding and manipulating JSON data (doc)
> 
> Some comments:
> 
> 1) Don't put the soname in the name of the -dev package, unless you are
>    really sure it is needed. It complicates SONAME transitions.
> 
>    Unfortunately library packaging docs are in flux right now, but see
>    for example the message
> 
>         http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2011/03/msg00357.html
>
> 2) Same for the doc file; I see less downsides here to the versioning, but
>    convention is to to have unversioned doc files.

There were some API changes between version 1.2 and 1.3 (which is the 
version I originally packaged) and I thought it was better to use a 
versioned -dev package, just to prevent issues, but since v2.0 has been 
released this is not needed anymore (according to upstream the API should 
be quite stable now).

For the versioned -doc package I simply followed the docs. Anyway, I've now 
renamed both the packages.

> 3) I see you install docs into /usr/share/doc/jansson instead of
>    /usr/share/libjansson4-doc. I'm not sure that this is a bug, but it
>    is bit unusual. Can you explain/justify this?

I took a couple of packages as examples (don't remember which ones, though)
that were doing this, when I started packaging jansson. But now that you 
pointed out, seems quite logical using *.docs and installing under
doc/libjansson-doc instead of doc/jansson.

> 4) It could be nice to install
> 
>    test/bin/json_process.c
> 
>    as an example (see e.g. man dh_installexamples); no makefile or anything
>    is needed.

Indeed.

> 5) licenscheck --copyright src   suggests one more copyright holder that
>    could be added to debian/copyright.

Thanks for spotting this.

> 6) I'm not sure about saying C library rather than just "library" in the
>    short description. Perhaps it betrays my age, but for me that is the
>    default. But I'm willing to convinced if there is some advantage to
>    the user.

Just copied the upstream's description here. Also, I do prefer when 
library packages explicitly says which language they are intended for (e.g. 
C, C++, etc), since it saves me a bit of research. But maybe it's just me :)

> That is all I see now.  Feel free to just push changes to git.debian.org;
> I prefer to work from the git repo in any case.

Thanks for your review.

Cheers

-- 
perl -E'$_=q;$/= @{[@_]};and s;\S+;<inidehG ordnasselA>;eg;say~~reverse'