Bug#925911: RFS: lopsub-1.0.2 [ITP]
On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 05:11:05PM +0200, Andre Noll wrote:
> That's just because I misread section 8.1 of the Debian Policy Manual.
> I've renamed the -dev package to liblopsub-dev.
Not sure if you'd want the _source_ package to have a simple soname-less
name as well; I would but that's up to you -- that'd be nicer and make
having only-one-version transitions easier; on the other hand a
soname-encoded source name is better when there's a need for multiple
coinstallable versions.
Your choice; current state is ok.
> If there are further issues, just let me know.
Just cosmetic stuff:
* installation instructions don't really belong in the man page -- if you
can read it, you've already managed to install the package.
* please copy the description for liblopsub1 to liblopsub-dev; it currently
says just "This package contains the development environment for the
lopsub library." It's pointless to require the user to check the other
package -- other libraries alter merely the last part. Also, it's -dev
what users pull by hand.
* is there a reason for shipping the static library? Static linking is
frowned upon in a distribution -- whenever the library gets updated,
every reverse dependency has to be recompiled; this is especially nasty
for security updates.
* (bonus) The nicely documented process for building the example looks
like something that could be turned into an autopkgtest. Unlike
build-time tests, autopkgtests are run against installed packages,
the way an user would. That's of course extra effort, by no means
required -- but, extra testing is always good.
But in general, the package already seems to be in a releasable state.
Could you please change "UNRELEASED" to "unstable" so it can be uploaded?
Meow!
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Did ya know that typing "test -j8" instead of "ctest -j8"
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ will make your testsuite pass much faster, and fix bugs?
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀
Reply to: