Re: RFS: libroxml
Tristan Lelong <tristan.lelong@libroxml.net> writes:
> http://debian.libroxml.net/libroxml_2.1.1-1.dsc
Cheers! My comments & answers are below:
> My comments:
>
> * I didn't used quilt for patches because there is currently no
> difference between the debian package and the original tarball except
> the debian directory in which quilt paches should be stored, and I
> don't really understand how to deal with this (kind of the egg and the
> chicken problem for me)
You don't need to have any patches to use 3.0 (quilt). In this simple
case, the main difference between 1.0 and 3.0 (quilt) will be that 1.0
has a .diff.gz, while 3.0 (quilt) will contain a .debian.tar.gz.
I find the latter easier to review, and in case you do need to apply
patches to the upstream sources later, 3.0 (quilt) lends itself better
to that - so by using it, you'll make your job easier in the long run.
But, like I said, this was just my curiosity asking. There's nothing
wrong with sticking to 1.0.
> * What do you mean when you says that the file
> /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL is unversioned?
/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL is a symlink to GPL-3, the latest
version. I believe it's useful to mention the versioned file (ie,
LGPL-2.1 in this case) instead of the symlink, to make it even more
clear which version is in use.
> * If I remove the libroxml0.postint file or remove the ldconfig, I got
> lintian warnings :
> W: libroxml0: maintainer-script-empty postinst
> E: libroxml0: postinst-must-call-ldconfig usr/lib/libroxml.so.0
You'll need to add dh_makeshlibs to debian/rules. That will add the
appropriate ldconfig call to postinst. (and, iirc, can generate an
shlibs file for you aswell, see the man page)
Also, I didn't notice it in the previous package, and might be a new
issue with the current one: the upstream orig.tar.gz contains compiled
binaries, and built docs. Perhaps you may wish to clean those out. They
make the tarball considerably bigger, and can present all kinds of
issues while building the package.
--
|8]
Reply to: