On 07/25/2017 04:05 PM, Roland Fehrenbacher wrote: > Hi Vitalie, > > I pick up the sponsoring process. > > V> Thank you very much for your help and comments. > > > libbitfield$SOVERSION (shared library) > > libbitfield-dev (development files) > > V> Done. Package name changed from 'bitfield' to 'libbitfield' and > SOVERSION is set > V> to 1, so we get: > V> libbitfield1 > V> libbitfield-dev > > This looks good now. > > > If you don't have soversioning in place, then it probably means that your > > software is still too volatile for you to think about a stable ABI / > API. If > > that's the case, then it is not a good candidate for packaging in Debian > just yet. > > V> Done. SO-versioning (and versioning policy in general) has been set. ABI > /API > V> has been stabilized. Version (1.0.0) has been released. > > That's also OK now. > > Some further problems with the packaging: > > - The link /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libbitfield.so should go to > the libbitfield-dev package. > - A shared library should have a debian/<package.>.symbols file > (see man dpkg-gensymbols). > - The standards version should be updated to 4.0.0 > - The files README.{Debian,source} do not provide any real info. They should > be dropped until they contain something useful. > - Please also remove the unrelated comments at the end of debian/rules > and the comments after the DH_VERBOSE line at the beginning. > - The files debian/*.dirs are unnecessary . Please remove. > > Please fix your package and ping me when done, so I can recheck. > > Cheers, > > Roland
Some other comments. * The debian/changelog should: - Contain only the first line. - Have 1.0.0-1 (and not -3) as Debian release, as no previous version were uploaded to Debian. * Is there a reason why you're using debhelper 9 and not 10? * I would recommend the use of "wrap-and-sort -t -a" (from devscripts) to make debian/control cleaner. * Your long description is a bit too short. When searching on a search engine, I can see there's lots of this type of library. Your long description doesn't tell where your library differentiate. Also, your long description for the -dev package is only 2 lines long, which even triggers a lintian warning that you should have seen. I would recommend copying the long desc of libbitfield1 on top of the 2 lines of libbitfield-dev as well. * There's some lintian errors about spelling in man pages. Please fix them. * Have you considered using DEB_BUILD_MAINT_OPTIONS=hardening=+all in your debian/rules ? That's usually a good idea, and lintian also complains about this. * The .symbols file contains the debian revision. Typically, this shouldn't be in, as the symbols are exported from the upstream version, and wont change on debian revisions. One last thing: what is your intention about packaging this library? Are you going to upload a program that will actually use that lib? What is the point in having it in Debian, and how will it be useful for our users? I hope this helps. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)