Bug#997016: RFS: swtpm/0.7.0-rc2-1 [ITA] -- Libtpms-based TPM emulator

[Seunghun Han <kkamagui@gmail.com>]

Hello Feri,

Thank you for your advice.

> The upstream version number should be 0.7.0~rc2 with a tilde instead of
> a hyphen to ensure proper ordering (as Lintian warns about).  To do such
> transformations automatically, put something like this in the watch file:
>
> uversionmangle=s/(\d)[_\.\-\+]?((RC|rc|pre|dev|beta|alpha)\d*)$/$1~$2/
>
I will update the watch file following your advice soon.

> >   swtpm - Libtpms-based TPM emulator
> >   swtpm-dev - Include files for the TPM emulator's CUSE interface
> >   swtpm-libs - Common libraries for TPM emulators
>
> Why do you deviate from the usual libswtpm-dev/libswtpm0 package names?
> Including the SO version in the package name enables installing
> incompatible versions side-by-side, which is useful.
>
> Also, shipping static libraries (like libswtpm_libtpms.a) is generally
> recommended against in Debian.  Does this package warrant it?

The upstream version already has some debian-related files, and I
changed them to adopt the package. The author of it wants to name it
like libswtpm0, so I used the name. The static libraries are also
involved in upstream debian files. Should I change the name like
libswtpm instead of libswtpm0 and remove static libraries from the
package?

>
> >   swtpm-tools - Tools for the TPM emulator
>
> Why do you put swtpm-create-tpmca, swtpm-create-user-config-files and
> swtpm-localca into /usr/share/swtpm instead of /usr/bin?  (This emits
> several Lintian information tags.)

The author of the upstream project wanted to put them to
/usr/share/swtpm. The files are just for the initialization and don't
be used for TPM operations directly, so maybe he wanted to put
/usr/share/swtpm instead of /usr/bin. Should I move them to /usr/bin?

Best regards,

Seunghun