On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Thomas Weber
wrote:
> In order to not screw up too badly, I'm looking for documentation on
> developing/packaging libraries (both from a developer's view and a
> maintainer's view).
libpkg-guide is the only public one I know of. dato was writing
something but it
Hi,
I maintain Octave in Debian. My upstream will switch to using libtool in
the next major release (ETA of that release is unknown, but somewhen in
2010).
In order to not screw up too badly, I'm looking for documentation on
developing/packaging libraries (both from a developer's view and a
mai
A Dilluns 29 Setembre 2008, Neil Williams va escriure:
[...]
> > > What matters is now - educating upstream to tweak the libtool
> > > versioning *separately* from the version string when the ABI next
> > > changes.
> >
> > Uff. Who am I to try to educate to upstream? :-) I can try to send an
> > e
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:08:24 +0200
Leopold Palomo Avellaneda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Yes, you are right. But I prefer the Debian library packaging guide, it's
> > > more clear in this aspect. However I guess than the author uses the
> > > version number as the SONAME number and don't know
A Dilluns 29 Setembre 2008, Neil Williams va escriure:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:40:47 +0200
>
> Leopold Palomo Avellaneda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Upstream uses autotools, but not in a very correct way, I guess. The
> > > > library is 3.5.6 version, but the configure + make creates
> > >
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:40:47 +0200
Leopold Palomo Avellaneda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Upstream uses autotools, but not in a very correct way, I guess. The
> > > library is 3.5.6 version, but the configure + make creates
> > > libXXX.so.0.0.0. I have looked on the configure.ac, Makefile.am,
A Dilluns 29 Setembre 2008, Neil Williams va escriure:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:31:55 +0200
>
> Leopold Palomo Avellaneda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm packing a library (not yet an ITP, just learning) and I'm having some
> > doubts about it.
> >
> > Upstream uses autotools, but no
IANADD
Leopold Palomo Avellaneda wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm packing a library (not yet an ITP, just learning) and I'm having some
> doubts about it.
[snip]
> Also, my second question is about to create a dbg package. Upstream has
> some --enable-debug that is a -DDEBUG. Looking on the source I have s
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:31:55 +0200
Leopold Palomo Avellaneda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm packing a library (not yet an ITP, just learning) and I'm having some
> doubts about it.
>
> Upstream uses autotools, but not in a very correct way, I guess. The library
> is 3.5.6 version, bu
Hi,
I'm packing a library (not yet an ITP, just learning) and I'm having some
doubts about it.
Upstream uses autotools, but not in a very correct way, I guess. The library
is 3.5.6 version, but the configure + make creates libXXX.so.0.0.0. I have
looked on the configure.ac, Makefile.am, etc, a
o.so) must be architecture-dependent and
therefore the .pc file needs to be in /usr/lib/ with all the other
library .pc files.
If this is unclear, maybe you should not be packaging a library in the
first place as shared library packages are always more complex than a
typical application package
Helmut Grohne wrote:
> Hi Georgi,
>
>> Why is my library architecture-dependent? How can I make it
>> architecture-independent, assuming the source code doesn't care about the
>> architecture (I don't think a printf should be a problem)?
>
> Your library will be compiled to a binary blob and thi
Hi Georgi,
> Why is my library architecture-dependent? How can I make it
> architecture-independent, assuming the source code doesn't care about the
> architecture (I don't think a printf should be a problem)?
Your library will be compiled to a binary blob and this binary blob is
architecture d
> > libnonsense-dev.install
> > ---
> > usr/include/*
> > usr/lib/lib*.a
> > usr/lib/lib*.so
> > usr/lib/pkgconfig/*
> > usr/lib/*.la
>
> It is IMHO a better idea to drop the libtool .la files.
Please excuse my ignorance, but why is it better to drop them?
> > usr/share/pkgcon
Am Freitag, den 28.03.2008, 00:41 +0100 schrieb Georgi Chulkov:
> I'm trying to package a very simple hello world library, before I move to
> more
> complex things. The problem is that dpkg will not include the most important
> files in the finished package. Here's what I did, step by step (on
All'incirca Fri, 28 Mar 2008 01:49:54 +0100, Romain Beauxis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sembrerebbe aver scritto:
> Appart from that, I can only point you to
> http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/
>
> There, you can find more documentation on the first steps in
> packaging stuff..
More documentati
Hi !
(..autotools stuff is not really in this list's scope..)
Le Friday 28 March 2008 00:41:20 Georgi Chulkov, vous avez écrit :
> As you can see, none of the important files are included in the packages.
> Why is that?
Seems like you have to edit and read debian/rules to see what it actu
Hello,
I'm trying to package a very simple hello world library, before I move to more
complex things. The problem is that dpkg will not include the most important
files in the finished package. Here's what I did, step by step (on a Kubuntu
7.10 system):
1. I start with the following source fil
Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> I particularly didn't like the
> point where they forbid you to create non-GPL programs that link to GPL
> libraries, but say that it's ok to link GPL binaries to non-GPL (and, in
> fact, GPL incompatible) libraries. It's either up to the binary or it
> isn't. If I'm not a
Neil Williams wrote:
I don't see that the program *as run* is free though - punx' code may be free
but it won't run without the non-free library and the restriction on
distributing it for commercial profit is irksome. Presumably, packages like
this that are in non-free or contrib don't get dis
Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Neil Williams wrote:
>
>>> If yes, what license would be best ?
>>
>> There are so many, I wouldn't know where to start.
>>
> I'll put in my 2 cents, then.
I completely agree with your explanation.
>> and if you do use the exception, make that clear too as it does have
>
Neil Williams wrote:
If yes, what license would be best ?
There are so many, I wouldn't know where to start.
I'll put in my 2 cents, then.
There are TONS of free licenses, but for all intent and purposes, I
really suggest you answer to yourself a couple of basic questions, and
choo
On Sunday 22 May 2005 6:15 pm, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> >You mean link a GPL program against a library that is non-free?!?!?!
> >
> >"Can I write free software that uses non-free libraries?
> >Your program won't be fully usable in a free environment. If your program
> >depends on a non-free library
On Sunday 22 May 2005 6:55 pm, punx120 wrote:
> Well, all this discussion about license are too complicated for me since
> I'm not used with license.
OK, but do make time to learn about licences if you're planning any more
programming - it's an integral part of the process.
> Concerning the lice
Well, all this discussion about license are too complicated for me since
I'm not used with license.
I'm just a student who wrote last year a program for my studies. I don't
want it to integrate debian.
I just wanted to place source files on my website. And I thought that
putting a debian pac
On 22.05.2005, at 19:15, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
I'm sorry, but that is totally wrong. Are you claiming that
rsyncrypto is illegal, because it is GPL and links with OpenSSL
(which is BSD)?
And if you claim this ridiculous claim, who is the offended party?
Who has the power to sue me for GPL v
Just so things are clear - I am not a lawyer.
Neil Williams wrote:
On Sunday 22 May 2005 2:56 pm, punx120 wrote:
Neil Williams wrote:
And i don't think the developers will give me their code to package it.
Then you should not use this library with free software, certainly n
On Sunday 22 May 2005 2:51 pm, Andreas Fester wrote:
> > The library, I'd like to package is FMOD (fmod.org), and it's a
> > "proprietary" library, it's free to use in a non-commercial software.
Can't be done. Debian is commercial - the GPL expressly requires that software
CAN be sold for a price
On Sunday 22 May 2005 2:56 pm, punx120 wrote:
> Neil Williams wrote:
> >>And i don't think the developers will give me their code to package it.
Then you should not use this library with free software, certainly not with
the GPL.
> > So what licence are you using for your program?
>
> Since it's
Neil Williams wrote:
On Sunday 22 May 2005 1:43 pm, punx120 wrote:
Thanks for you reply.
The library, I'd like to package is FMOD (fmod.org), and it's a
"proprietary" library, it's free to use in a non-commercial software.
Doesn't that make your program non-free in Debian?
Free Redistribu
Hi,
The library, I'd like to package is FMOD (fmod.org), and it's a
"proprietary" library, it's free to use in a non-commercial software.
I had a look into it; since they only seem to provide the library in
binary format, this changes some things significantly: The library
itself can only go i
On Sunday 22 May 2005 1:43 pm, punx120 wrote:
> Thanks for you reply.
>
> The library, I'd like to package is FMOD (fmod.org), and it's a
> "proprietary" library, it's free to use in a non-commercial software.
Doesn't that make your program non-free in Debian?
Free Redistribution
The license of a
Thanks for you reply.
The library, I'd like to package is FMOD (fmod.org), and it's a
"proprietary" library, it's free to use in a non-commercial software.
And i don't think the developers will give me their code to package it.
So, i don't really know how to start. For my soft, I ran dh_make
Hi,
Probably someone to help you, actually. See if you can get a sponsor for the
library (have you done an ITP for the library?), see if there is an existing
maintainer who might help you.
I am working on debian packages for log4cxx for some time,
and this is also my first package; learned a
On Saturday 21 May 2005 4:14 pm, punx120 wrote:
> To work, my software needs the library FMOD (www.fmod.org), and there is
> no debian package for this library.
I have a similar situation - my package that I hope will allow me to become a
new DD depends on changes I've made to an existing library
Hello,
Some days ago, i made my first debian package with a software i wrote
last year. Everything seems ok.
To work, my software needs the library FMOD (www.fmod.org), and there is
no debian package for this library.
So i would like to build one, but in the documentation i don't see
anyth
Hi -mentors ...,
I'm currently in the process of packaging liboop (www.liboop.org), which
is an event loop management library that comes with "adapters" for
various other libraries (currently tcl, libadns, libwww, libglib and
libreadline). These adapter libraries are installed as
/usr/lib/liboop-{
Hi -mentors ...,
I'm currently in the process of packaging liboop (www.liboop.org), which
is an event loop management library that comes with "adapters" for
various other libraries (currently tcl, libadns, libwww, libglib and
libreadline). These adapter libraries are installed as
/usr/lib/liboop-
38 matches
Mail list logo
