On Nov 19, 2007 6:53 PM, Robin Cornelius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Which way do you suggest I should go with the naming? I can recreate a > c-ares package if required or stick with the libcares name.
I suggest: source package: c-ares: because the upstream tarball is named this way lib binary package: libcares1: because the libpkg-guide says to use the soname in the library package name dev binary package: libcares-dev: because release managers don't like sonames in the dev package name > Out of interest do you have a check-list or just use experience to spot > issues with packages? (I am of cause aware of the various policy and > maintainer guide documents etc.). I wonder if many of the issues you > have pulled me up on could be made into lintian warnings? In any case I > will use your comments to form my own check-list. I've a partial standards document that I've mostly abandoned: http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise/Standards Other sponsors have similar documents, some can be found from: http://people.debian.org/~mpalmer/debian-mentors_FAQ.html Googling on people.debian.org might find some more. There is also: http://wiki.debian.org/SponsorChecklist Mostly I rely on experience and some vague sense of "elegance" or "correctness". As far as the things I found in yr package & lintian: copyright stuff & RELEASE-NOTES file would probably need lintian to have an AI extra lines - this is just a minor thing, shouldn't be tested by lintian homepage field - many upstreams are just a download site, this would be annoying upstream source name - maybe, that would rely on the watch file though. probably not worth the effort though since it occurs so little. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
