On 15/01/2023 22:49, Adam Dinwoodie via Cygwin-apps wrote:
I added this to your packages.
NAME=libinih
Since the upstream name is just 'inih', the source package should probably
be named that also.
Can I double-check how that should work from a package naming
perspective? I *think* that means we'd have:
- libinih0-$PVR, being the libraries themselves
- libinih0-debuginfo-$PVR, being the debugging symbols for the libraries
- inih-devel-$PVR, being the header, static libraries and pkgconfig files
- inih-$PVR.src, being the source code
Is that right? In particular, is it right that the debuginfo name
matches the library, while the devel package doesn't? Or should it only
be the source package that has a different name?
(The build linked above as rc2 has the debuginfo package as
inih-debuginfo, and the devel package as libinih-devel, but on
reflection that doesn't seem quite right to me. If nothing else, I
think I'd expect to find the debug symbols in a package with the same
name as the package I'm debugging...)
Unfortunately, this assumption isn't correct.
cygport makes a single debuginfo package for each source package, named
$NAME-debuginfo.
(Consider e.g. if we have libfoo0 and foo-tools made from the foo source
package, the debuginfo for both is placed in foo-debuginfo. It's not
entirely clear to me that we could make a debuginfo package for each
installed package with executable content, since e.g. it contains source
code headers, which would then be duplicated...)
Practically, if someone wants to traverse from an install package to the
matching debuginfo, they have to do it via the source package, but
again, this is emergent behaviour rather than a considered design...
