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

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

On 07/25/2017 04:05 PM, Roland Fehrenbacher wrote:
> 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.
> Cheers,
> Roland

Some other comments.

* The debian/changelog should:
- Contain only the first line.
- Have 1.0.0-1 (and not -3) as Debian release, as no previous version
were uploaded to Debian.

* Is there a reason why you're using debhelper 9 and not 10?

* I would recommend the use of "wrap-and-sort -t -a" (from devscripts)
to make debian/control cleaner.

* Your long description is a bit too short. When searching on a search
engine, I can see there's lots of this type of library. Your long
description doesn't tell where your library differentiate. Also, your
long description for the -dev package is only 2 lines long, which even
triggers a lintian warning that you should have seen. I would recommend
copying the long desc of libbitfield1 on top of the 2 lines of
libbitfield-dev as well.

* There's some lintian errors about spelling in man pages. Please fix them.

* Have you considered using DEB_BUILD_MAINT_OPTIONS=hardening=+all in
your debian/rules ? That's usually a good idea, and lintian also
complains about this.

* The .symbols file contains the debian revision. Typically, this
shouldn't be in, as the symbols are exported from the upstream version,
and wont change on debian revisions.

One last thing: what is your intention about packaging this library? Are
you going to upload a program that will actually use that lib? What is
the point in having it in Debian, and how will it be useful for our users?

I hope this helps.


Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Reply to: