Bug#812761: Comments regarding your packaging plans for flif
Hi Jon, how's the packaging going?
My remarks below:
> The source package would have multiple binary packages:
> - flif (command line tool)
> - libflif (shared library)
> - viewflif (simple image/animation viewer)
> - gif2flif (shell script)
> - apng2flif (shell script)
I would recommend the following layout, based on my experience:
- libflif0 (shared library)
- libflif-dev (development files)
- flif-doc (documentation)
- flif-tools or flif-bin or flif (tools and scripts)
No-need to split the tools package further, I believe. Otherwise, your
package would introduce a new binary package everytime a new script is
introduced, which would unnecessarily delay the upload to the archive.
> I am trying to put all necessary Debian packaging config files
> directly in the upstream git repository, at:
> https://github.com/FLIF-hub/FLIF
This practice is discouraged. Please don't embed the Debian packaging
files in the upstream repository. You might want to maintain them in a
separate branch instead for the time being. Have a look at what I have
done with field3d:
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-phototools/field3d.git
> I hope to have flif included in the Debian archive when this release
> will be announced.
Well, this is up-to you and the quality of your packaging work.
> it would help to have a more experienced co-maintainer who can check
> and improve my effort at packaging.
Consider joining the phototools team and host your packaging repository
there, so that experienced maintainers like me can interact directly.
Good luck,
Ghislain
Reply to: