John Goerzen writes:
> Robert Graham Merkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> gwrapguile for the source
> libgwrapguile0
> libgwrapguile-dev
>
John, there are actually three .debs that come out of this source
package:
g-wrap (executable, documentation etc. Needed for actually doing the
wrapping)
libgwrapguile0 (dynamic library)
libgwrapguile-dev (static library and headers)
gwrapguile would be a misleading name for the source package because
g-wrap actually supports wrapping C libraries for rscheme as well as
guile.
Given the above, should I still rename the package?
> Also, I realize that we do not have i386 debs of those available yet,
> but when we do, I would also suggest that you use the official Debian
> ones where possible. In any case, I'd also recommend that you set the
> Debian version number (currently at "1") to 0.1 (ie, version
> 0.9.1-0.1) such that when people update their systems, they can get
> the Debian version automatically. Otherwise, we can have some
> problems with coordinating bug reports and the like. This way, we can
> get the best of both worlds: instant .debs from gnucash, and upgrades
> from Debian.
Sure.
I'm in the new-maintainer queue, and as soon as I get approved I'll
upload g-wrap. If you'd like to sponsor an upload when we get the
current glitches ironed out, that would be very useful!
BTW, unless you've modified the gnucash build, libgwrapguile is linked
statically, so gnucash doesn't actually truly depend on libgwrapguile0
(dynamic linking is fine in Debian where the requisite packages get
installed automatically, but would add yet another
dependancy in the world of RPM's).
libgwrapguile-dev and g-wrap should be Source-Depends for gnucash.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Merkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------
--
Gnucash Developer's List
To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
