Re: RFS: libzeep
Hey Niels,
On 15-01-11 23:13, Niels Thykier wrote:
Right, you do not have to paste its contents in twice. You can say
something like:
"Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0.
See the full text of the license above/below"
fixed that.
Also, the license file is still installed in the -dev package. (see
debian/docs). In general, when you have multiple binary packages (like
this case), you should use debian/<packagename>.docs (etc.) instead of
debian/docs
Ah... yes. I've changed this, the README is now installed by the -dev
package only and the LICENSE is not installed any more.
I also upgraded the copyright file to dep5 format.
It would also be cool if the build supported the CFLAGS/LDFLAGS set by
dpkg-buildpackage/dpkg-buildflags. This would allow derivatives and
users to rebuild the package with different standard flags. A notable
example here is Ubuntu, which is currently linking with --no-add-needed
and --as-needed.
I messed around a bit and the library appears to build just fine with
- --no-add-needed (and --no-undefined), so it appears to be properly linked.
Well... that took a bit more work than I expected. Mainly because I had
to find out how the dpkg-buildflags tool works and what the format of
the buildflags.conf file is supposed to be. Eventually found out by
looking at the Perl code. Maybe a man page for the file format could be
added.
Anyway, I added support for build-flags. But I used the CFLAGS variable
and not the CXXFLAGS one even though my code is C++ only. I'm not sure
if this is a problem. The reason I did this is that I guess most people
will set CFLAGS and forget about the existence of CXXFLAGS.
I hope I'm getting close now?
Best regards,
-maarten hekkelman
Reply to: