On 09/01/2008, Todd A. Jacobs wrote:
> Which is what I did...but I grokked that I was supposed to create an
> ITP for each .deb, not for each source package.
One per source package. You could eventually specify after the usual
fields and the descriptions that you're going to build binaries foo,
bar, baz, quux.
> If that was in error,
Yes,
> I can close all three bugs and reopen one for libdmtx0 only.
Or merge them, and retitle so that only one ITP for libdmtx (or dmtx,
depending on how upstream names it), and you're done.
> Okay, so you'd like to see three packages named:
>
> libdmtx0
> libdmtx0-dev
> libdmtx0-utils
>
> Is that right? If so, I'd be glad to do it that way. If I've
> misunderstood again, please clarify what's needed.
It'd rather be:
- libdmtx0: versioning is important, see libpkg-guide[1] (which is a
must-read, but not enough, when it comes to packaging
libraries, which isn't trivial)
- libdmtx-dev: unless you're going to maintain several versions of the
library at the same time, which you probably won't do,
there's no need to have libdmtxN-dev
- libdmtx-utils: which usually contains tools that are only depending
upon libdmtxN, where N varies.
1. http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/
Cheers,
--
Cyril Brulebois
Attachment:
pgp0ILCIfC_VB.pgp
Description: PGP signature