On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 14:07, Dan S <danstowell+de...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/4/10 Felipe Sateler <fsate...@debian.org>:
>> On to more general comments:
>> - Shared libraries have to be on a package of their own. See policy
>> section 8. For this package it means we need new binary packages
>> called libsclang1 and libscsynth1 with the shared library. The .so
>> symlinks should go in the dev package.
> OK, done this, but lintian tells me:
> W: libsclang1: package-name-doesnt-match-sonames libsclang1.0.0
> W: libscsynth1: package-name-doesnt-match-sonames libscsynth1.0.0
> Not sure what to do from here, whether the package name needs the
> decimals (yuck) or the soname needs to lose the decimals (& do we then
> need another soflink libsclang1->libsclang1.0.0)?
Usually the SONAME only contains the major number. Under standard
autotools, the scheme is as follows:
libfoo.so.x.y.z -> the actual shared lib
libfoo.so.x -> symlink to the shared lib, for run-time linkage
libfoo.so-> symlink to the shared lib, for build-time linkage
Unless you plan to use the y and z versioning, you might as well just
have the x portion and just install the lib as libfoo.so.x:
libfoo.so.x -> the actual shared lib
libfoo.so -> symlink for build-time linkage.
>> - Is the sc-common-dev and sc-dev split really necessary?
> It has a purpose: sc-dev is the dev files for working with the
> language API, which would be irrelevant for someone doing work with
> the server (e.g. a plugin). However, it might be worth thinking about
> lumping them all together since after all it's just some header files
> - I'll mention it to the devs and see what we think.
Both are very small and there are no (massive) extra dependencies so I
think they can be folded into one package. Can the server-dev package
be folded in too?
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list