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

Bug#630761: RFP: libczmq -- High-level C binding for ZeroMQ



On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 08:24:34PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-07-30 at 16:58 +0200, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
> > * The -dev package should just be named libczmq-dev (i.e. without the version),
> >   this way next time the project bumps the SONAME it'll be easier to do the
> >   transition (you won't have to update all the reverse build dependencies).
> > 
> > * Same goes for -dbg, but it's less important in that case.
> 
> Reasoning for this choice was to follow what libzmq does, since the
> maintainer is making both libzmq1 and libzmq3 (and libzmq5 in
> experimental) available at the same time, and I thought in the future
> I'd do the same for libczmq.

FWIW, being the one who originally packaged the zeromq and zeromq3 packages,
the reason why I kept them separate was that some of the reverse dependencies
of libzmq-dev did not build with the newer version, so both had to be kept in
the archive. Otherwise I would have just renamed libzmq1 to libzmq3 and kept
the same -dev, -dbg and source package names.

> > * The README.source doesn't really provide any useful information, so it can
> >   be removed (also, since the dh-autoreconf plugin is used, the tarball
> >   generated from GitHub would probably work as well).
> 
> I added it since there is a discrepancy between the tarballs on the
> official website and Github, and to explain it.
> 
> If it is all right with you, I would rather keep using the tarball from
> the website

Yeah, that's fine. My point was that you don't really need to justify why you
used one tarball instead of the other, so the README.source file is useless
(the debian/watch file already tells people where the tarball comes from).

> > * No need to override the debian-watch-may-check-gpg-signature lintian warning
> >   (but it's not a problem if you want to do it anyway...).
> 
> It was giving a warning on the Mentors upload page, so I added it. I'd
> like to keep it overridden if you don't mind :-)

Sure, no problem.

So, now the package looks good. Please set the target distribution to "unstable"
in the changelog and I'll upload.

Cheers

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: