On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 06:14:25PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > A review: Thanks for your review,
> > The first 3 symbols in the symbols file look like they might be > internal symbols that should not be exported, is that the case? > > http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Visibility It seems tha the whole file src/smf_private.h shoul not export symbols, so I will make a patch to add #pragma GCC visibility push(hidden) ... #pragma GCC visibility pop and check it with upstreamer (maybe he prefers another approach). > > The SONAME should not be added to the -dev or utils packages. I'd > recommend naming the utils package smf-utils > Ok, I will change the names. > Why does the -dev package depend on libc-dev? > >From the "Debian Library Packaging guide" (a non official document) http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html#id291957 "The -DEV package would usually declare Depends: relationship on all -DEV packages for libraries that the library package directly depends upon, with the specific SONAME version that the library package is linked against. This includes libc-dev. [5] The dependency is required to make things such as statically linked libraries to work, and C header file inclusions. ... [5] A package should depend on libc-dev, without versioned depends, or generate ... Not all architectures have libc-dev as libc6-dev." I saw that packages like libgpm-dev does this. Is this wrong (or deprecated)? > I find it interesting that upstream uses readline (GPL) rather than > editline (BSD). Thanks for your help. -- Josué M. Abarca S. Vos mereces Software Libre. PGP key 4096R/70D8FB2A 2009-06-17 fingerprint = B3ED 4984 F65A 9AE0 6511 DAF4 756B EB4B 70D8 FB2A -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
