[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#864428: RFS: bitfield/1.0.0-2 [ITP #864358]

Hi Vitalie,

I pick up the sponsoring process.

  V> Thank you very much for your help and comments.

   > libbitfield$SOVERSION (shared library)
   > libbitfield-dev (development files)

  V> Done. Package name changed from 'bitfield' to 'libbitfield' and SOVERSION is set
  V> to 1, so we get:
  V>   libbitfield1
  V>   libbitfield-dev

This looks good now.

   > If you don't have soversioning in place, then it probably means that your
   > software is still too volatile for you to think about a stable ABI / API. If
   > that's the case, then it is not a good candidate for packaging in Debian just yet.

  V> Done. SO-versioning (and versioning policy in general) has been set. ABI /API
  V> has been stabilized. Version (1.0.0) has been released.

That's also OK now.

Some further problems with the packaging:

- The link /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libbitfield.so should go to
  the libbitfield-dev package.
- A shared library should have a debian/<package.>.symbols file
  (see man dpkg-gensymbols).
- The standards version should be updated to 4.0.0
- The files README.{Debian,source} do not provide any real info. They should
  be dropped until they contain something useful.
- Please also remove the unrelated comments at the end of debian/rules
  and the comments after the DH_VERBOSE line at the beginning.
- The files debian/*.dirs are unnecessary . Please remove.

Please fix your package and ping me when done, so I can recheck.



Reply to: