Mike Markley skrev, on 19-07-2007 05:00: > With the 2.0 beta sitting out there, I've begun thinking about how best > to package libdkim for Debian. The important questions this brings up > are: > > 1. Shared vs. static: Is there any intent to ship libdkim.so as a > general-use library, or just libdkim.a? I generally prefer to build/ > ship libdkim.so, but if Debian is the only thing doing so, it's > probably not very useful.
I don't have to package debs at the moment ;) but I do have to package RH and Fedora rpms and have made rpms for both, including dkim-milter 2.0-dev - which I'm running as a test on Postfix 2.4.3, with very good results. There are no libdkim libraries in my build directories; libs for both libdim and libdk are incorporated direct into the milter binary. > 2. Headers: What headers should ship with the "development" version of > the package? Just dkim.h? Running rpmlint on the rpm doesn't give any indication that there should be any development package; normally rpmlint is strict about there having to be such, if it's warranted. > 3. Versioning: Debian requires versioning of shared libraries (and use > of SONAME). What is the appropriate version number for libdkim in the > dkim-milter 1.x package? How about 2.x? Should I skip packaging the > 1.x version of the library entirely? See above. Best, --Tonni -- Tony Earnshaw Email: tonni at hetnet dot nl ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ dkim-milter-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dkim-milter-discuss
