On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [I take the freedom to quote your private mail to Debian-Med list and > hope you don't mind about ignorance of the netiquette in this special > case.]
No problem, and sorry for not following up sooner. > 0. Think about group maintenance in DebiChem or Debian-Med > as well. Group maintenance would be ok, but as mentioned in the ITP (#467655), I'm not a big fan of maintaining patch stacks under debian/. I will look into the merge mode in svn-buildpackage and see if I can integrate it to my workflow easily, but this will take some time. > 1. If it is a library you should probably follow the library > packaging guide. This includes providing a package containing > the dynamical library as well as a -dev package with static > library and *.h files. > Hint: The most easiest way to build both is making usage of > automake and libtools. If you have problems with this > you could ask on debian-devel. If you decide to do so > it is a very good idea to talks to upstream about this first. Policy 8.3 gives three reasons for making static-only libraries. CBFlib scores two out of these three, namely * libraries whose interfaces are in flux or under development (commonly the case when the library's major version number is zero, or where the ABI breaks across patchlevels) * libraries which are explicitly intended to be available only in static form by their upstream author(s) I think the earliest time to start thinking about CBFlib shared libraries is when there's another package besides Rasmol in Debian depending on it. > 2. I see large chunks of documentation in the source package > but no separate doc package. I would strongly advise to > build a separate doc package. Ok, I'll revise the package soonish. > BTW, did rasmol upstream accepted your GTK version? Yes, the code is in the CVS, but maybe not in the next release. Best, Teemu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
