On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 01:31:44PM +0000, Neil Williams wrote: > On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:07:16 +0100 > Bernd Zeimetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > first thing I can recommend: Don't use cdbs for that. That just doesn't > > work for building proper library packages. > > Bunkum!!!
:) I hope not started flamewar there. > CDBS is fine for all packages if the maintainer chooses to use it. > > I maintain a couple of libraries with CDBS and a couple with debhelper. > There are no problems with using either method, providing they are > used properly. > > Take a look at the source for libqof1 and tell me that CDBS cannot work > for a *proper* library package. It was really my decision, to not strip -debug flavour of a libustr. I decided for including libustr-debug-1.0-1 & libustr-debug-dev, because upstream author do rpm packages for these. CDBS is nice in its simplicity I think. -dbg package with extracted debugging symbols was already there. I'm excluding -debug stuff now. I must fix upstream Makefile to not build DBG flavour of lib, as it could be wasting of resources and time. >... > > Chances are good that a -dbg package would make more sense then this > > debug library weirdness. > > And is soon to be mandated by policy. > > CDBS will do this for you if you create the entry in debian/control. Yes it was here already and cdbs created -dbg package. -debug was another build flavour of ustr. -- Zito -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
