Bug#488117: New package available (0.5.0-2)

[Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org>]

On Fri, Oct 10, 2008, Gregor Jasny wrote:
> Thanks for doing all this work. Regarding the patch from Kees, I'd like
> to keep the static libs. They are installed side by side with the shared
> ones and would be only used if explicitely requested by the developer.

 Ok; we could prepare another upload to NEW with this change, but I
 think it's best to change this immediately after the package comes out
 of NEW.  I also don't mind providing static libraries as I'm regularly
 asked for them, and told Kees about them as well, but I wouldn't stand
 for them.  :)

> As I mentioned before, I'm on holidays and will have (almost) no
> internet access till next saturday. I'd be glad if you set up the
> repository on alioth.

 (This can happily wait a week.)

> >  I also did a couple of changes myself:
> >   * Add ${misc:Depends} to all packages as recommended in debhelper >= 5 mode
> >     and add ${shlibs:Depends} to -dev packages which sneak extra deps if they
> >     start shipping binaries.

 See debhelper(7), "Automatic generation of miscellaneous dependencies";
 I was actually wrong, it's encouraged since version 4 of debhelper, not
 5 (see "V4  Changes from V3").

> Have you some documentation pointers for this? In the 32bit multilib
> sections of libz and libasound there are also some bidev / bilib
> dependencies. Do you know where they come from? Maybe some Ubuntu
> magic?

 They are generated from the libc6-i386 shlibs; I think it's the usual
 shlibs mechanism.  gcc-multilib -> gcc-4.x-multilib -> libc6-dev-i386
 -> libc6-i386, so it should be fine, but I wonder whether we should
 list the build-essential packages for 32-bits more explicitely.

 The deps look fine here:
     Depends: libv4l-0 (= 0.5.0-3), libc6-i386 (>= 2.7-1)

 ok on intrepid as well:
  Depends: libv4l-0 (= 0.5.0-2), libc6-i386 (>= 2.4)

-- 
Loïc Minier