At 20:00 18-07-2007, Mike Markley wrote: >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.
dkim-milter ships as source code. You can build a shared library for your distribution if you prefer that. >2. Headers: What headers should ship with the "development" version of > the package? Just dkim.h? The code for the library is in the libdkim/ directory. There is also documentation for the API. >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? It may be better to keep it in sync with the release version number. Regards, -sm ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ dkim-milter-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dkim-milter-discuss
