On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 05:11:05PM +0200, Andre Noll wrote: > That's just because I misread section 8.1 of the Debian Policy Manual. > I've renamed the -dev package to liblopsub-dev.
Not sure if you'd want the _source_ package to have a simple soname-less name as well; I would but that's up to you -- that'd be nicer and make having only-one-version transitions easier; on the other hand a soname-encoded source name is better when there's a need for multiple coinstallable versions. Your choice; current state is ok. > If there are further issues, just let me know. Just cosmetic stuff: * installation instructions don't really belong in the man page -- if you can read it, you've already managed to install the package. * please copy the description for liblopsub1 to liblopsub-dev; it currently says just "This package contains the development environment for the lopsub library." It's pointless to require the user to check the other package -- other libraries alter merely the last part. Also, it's -dev what users pull by hand. * is there a reason for shipping the static library? Static linking is frowned upon in a distribution -- whenever the library gets updated, every reverse dependency has to be recompiled; this is especially nasty for security updates. * (bonus) The nicely documented process for building the example looks like something that could be turned into an autopkgtest. Unlike build-time tests, autopkgtests are run against installed packages, the way an user would. That's of course extra effort, by no means required -- but, extra testing is always good. But in general, the package already seems to be in a releasable state. Could you please change "UNRELEASED" to "unstable" so it can be uploaded? Meow! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Did ya know that typing "test -j8" instead of "ctest -j8" ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ will make your testsuite pass much faster, and fix bugs? ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀