Hi, On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 01:07:16PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > Hi, > > first thing I can recommend: Don't use cdbs for that. That just doesn't > work for building proper library packages.
Must mention, that cdbs uses debhelper for almost everything. > You also want to read > http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html Thanks a lot. I didn't catch this guide before. I printed this guide and am going to read it. > and > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html#s-libraries I Red already. > After reading the second link you should realize that you need to build > the static library with other options than the normal .so (hint: -fPIC, > also check for -D_REENTRANT) It seems to me, that -D_REENTRANT is missing in upstream Makefile. Thanks. > >> * Linda says: > >> > >> $ linda ustr_1.0.1-1_i386.changes > >> W: libustr-1.0-1; The library libustr is not in a shlibs file. > >> W: libustr-debug-1.0-1; The library libustr-debug is not in a shlibs file. > >> E: libustr-debug-1.0-1; Binary /usr/lib/libustr-debug-1.0.so.1.0.1 > >> contains unneeded section comment. > >> E: libustr-debug-1.0-1; Binary /usr/lib/libustr-debug-1.0.so.1.0.1 is > >> not stripped. > > > > I doubt about worthiness to have `-debug' packages now. Should I exclude > > libustr-debug-1.0-1 and libustr-debug-dev? If someone needs to debug > > ustr, he can build a debug library himself and so have the sources... > > Chances are good that a -dbg package would make more sense then this > debug library weirdness. Ok. Debuging symbols are already there libustr-1.0-1-dbg I will remove libustr-debug-1.0-1 libustr-debug-dev Regards -- Zito -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
