Bug#630761: RFP: libczmq -- High-level C binding for ZeroMQ
On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 11:20 +0200, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
> 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.
Ah I see, makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.
> > > * 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).
Ok, makes sense, removed.
> > > * 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.
Changed to unstable and added you in the Uploaders field, tagged and
pushed. Thank you very much, I really appreciate your help!
Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi
Brocade Communications Systems
Reply to: