Hi > They are both used in the build. But if I understand you right, are you > suggesting to drop the explicit dependencies since dh-autoreconf already > depends on automake and libtool? If this is the customary way then I'll > drop the explicit dependencies on automake and libtool. I think so. dh-autoreconf should be enough (with an added pkg-config if needed, IIRC) > This file is made obsolete by the pkg-config file, and it was creating a > problem for multiarch packages: it would install in > /usr/bin/cgicc-config, making it impossible to install two architectures > of this package. this is a problem when the files are not bit-bit identical between architecture, and this seems to be this case ## Host information --host) echo "x86_64-pc-linux-gnu" && exit 0 ;; this changes. You can patch that change out, as example you can grab what we did for libpng1.6[1] or try to print the triplet at runtime, when the user asks for it maybe dpkg-architecture has something interesting for you [1] https://sources.debian.net/src/libpng1.6/1.6.25-1/debian/patches/libpng-config.patch/ > | Using this kind of system to pass compile file is obsolete and will > likely introduce bugs in a multi-arch system. > | Particularly, this kind of script could only belong to a package that > is not Multi-Arch. > > So I took this as excuse to remove the file from the package. > > One possible solution (suggested by lintian) is to move the file out of > the way (to /usr/share/doc, I presume) so it is still shipped, but it >won't be found by build tools, which kind of defeats its purpose. I'm >doubtful there is any benefit in shipping this file. I think patching it to be architecture independent might be the best solution >As far as I can see from the CVS changes, the 'current' value in the >soname was increased in the early 2000's, presumably due to ABI changes. >Then in 2013 the soname was decreased from 5 to 3 in order to match the >library version. This was done as part of these bugs: > >I presume the package should follow the upstream soname. And this would >probably also justify the renamed package, as you were musing in your >mail. If there are no objections, I will rename the packages from >libcgicc5 to libcgicc. libcgicc3 you mean :) >This should be fixed by the renaming from libcgicc5* -> libcgicc*. always a final 3 >Raised as https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?49120 >Thinking again, I guess that's not correct. This would require the >packages to be renamed to libcgicc3. oops you got it already >I have uploaded a new build to debian mentors for further review. I'll have a look if you can provide an answer to my above comments :) thanks! Gianfranco
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature