Bug#579509: ctpl version 0.3.2 available at m.d.n
Hi everybody ! I've uploaded a new version which takes Chow Loong Jin's remarks into account. Thanks to him! Le Thu, 20 Jan 2011 03:22:39 +0800, Chow Loong Jin hyper...@ubuntu.com a écrit : Hi Johnathan, I can't sponsor your package (I've already uploaded 0.3.2 to Ubuntu though), but I'd like to drop a few notes from what I've noticed while bringing ctpl up to date in Ubuntu. This may sound as duplicate work, but as I'm quite new to packaging so this way I learn a lot more. I don't know however whether this will make conflicts at Ubuntu sync time… in case this package get uploaded to main Debian. 1. libctpl2.symbols should not be copied from libctpl1.symbols. This is because libctpl1.symbols was for libctpl.so.1, but libctpl2.symbols is for libctpl.so.2. If you have a symbol that's versioned 0.2, for example, then what could happen is that you get a package that depends on libctpl2 (= 0.2), but libctpl2 did not exist prior to 0.3, when the SONAME bump took place. Understood and done. 2. Evgeni mentioned this to me sometime back, but I'm not sure if the message reached you -- static libraries shouldn't be packaged at all, so please drop /usr/lib/lib*.a from libctpl-dev.install Done. Effectivly I didn't know about that before. 3. ctpl is only built if gio-2.0 = 2.24 is found, and gio-2.0 is part of libglib2.0-dev, so you'll need to bump the version for that in the build-dep to 2.24 rather than leaving it at 2.16. Done too. Was a oops. 4. Why are you build-dep'ing on libglib2.0-doc? I'm not sure whether this is really needed. This is needed so that gtk-doc can create links to glib's pages in the html documentation . As libctpl heavily uses glib types and facilities I thought that this will greatly improve the doc's usability. 5. Drop the libctpl2 depends from ctpl in debian/control. dh_shlibdeps will pick it up on its own, with a more accurate dependency. Okay, done. 6. I'm not sure why libctpl-doc recommends libglib2.0-doc. Is that really necessary? This is related to 4). If we link to glib's doc, it's recommended (but not absolutely necessary) that libglib2.0-doc be installed. Apart from that, I think the package looks fine :-) Thanks! I'm waiting for Squeeze's release and end of deep freeze to seek for a sponsor. -- Jonathan Michalon Étudiant en informatique -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110122163959.1c738...@runningpinguin.chalmion.homelinux.net
Bug#579509: ctpl version 0.3.2 available at m.d.n
On Saturday 22,January,2011 11:39 PM, Jonathan Michalon wrote: [...] I can't sponsor your package (I've already uploaded 0.3.2 to Ubuntu though), but I'd like to drop a few notes from what I've noticed while bringing ctpl up to date in Ubuntu. This may sound as duplicate work, but as I'm quite new to packaging so this way I learn a lot more. I don't know however whether this will make conflicts at Ubuntu sync time… in case this package get uploaded to main Debian. It shouldn't conflict. The Ubuntu packages have a version of a.b.c-XubuntuY, where a.b.c-X is the Debian version it is based on. The ctpl package I have uploaded has a version 0.3.2-0ubuntu1, which can be superseded by the Debian version at any point in the future. If there is a need to preserve a delta against your package, then we'll just merge it into the new version, yielding something like 0.3.2-1ubuntu1. [...] 4. Why are you build-dep'ing on libglib2.0-doc? I'm not sure whether this is really needed. This is needed so that gtk-doc can create links to glib's pages in the html documentation . As libctpl heavily uses glib types and facilities I thought that this will greatly improve the doc's usability. Oh, I see, so the links aren't hardcoded in the generated docs? I thought they were. 5. Drop the libctpl2 depends from ctpl in debian/control. dh_shlibdeps will pick it up on its own, with a more accurate dependency. Okay, done. 6. I'm not sure why libctpl-doc recommends libglib2.0-doc. Is that really necessary? This is related to 4). If we link to glib's doc, it's recommended (but not absolutely necessary) that libglib2.0-doc be installed. Okay, understood. Apart from that, I think the package looks fine :-) Thanks! I'm waiting for Squeeze's release and end of deep freeze to seek for a sponsor. There's always Evgeni to poke. He's always on #geany on FreeNode. :-) -- Kind regards, Loong Jin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#579509: ctpl version 0.3.2 available at m.d.n
On Thursday 20,January,2011 02:05 AM, Jonathan Michalon wrote: Hi, dear ITP! Time to post an update: version 0.3.2 of ctpl is out and fixes an ugly bug (among other nice stuff). The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/ctpl - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/ctpl/ctpl_0.3.2-1.dsc Have a nice release ! Hi Johnathan, I can't sponsor your package (I've already uploaded 0.3.2 to Ubuntu though), but I'd like to drop a few notes from what I've noticed while bringing ctpl up to date in Ubuntu. 1. libctpl2.symbols should not be copied from libctpl1.symbols. This is because libctpl1.symbols was for libctpl.so.1, but libctpl2.symbols is for libctpl.so.2. If you have a symbol that's versioned 0.2, for example, then what could happen is that you get a package that depends on libctpl2 (= 0.2), but libctpl2 did not exist prior to 0.3, when the SONAME bump took place. 2. Evgeni mentioned this to me sometime back, but I'm not sure if the message reached you -- static libraries shouldn't be packaged at all, so please drop /usr/lib/lib*.a from libctpl-dev.install 3. ctpl is only built if gio-2.0 = 2.24 is found, and gio-2.0 is part of libglib2.0-dev, so you'll need to bump the version for that in the build-dep to 2.24 rather than leaving it at 2.16. 4. Why are you build-dep'ing on libglib2.0-doc? I'm not sure whether this is really needed. 5. Drop the libctpl2 depends from ctpl in debian/control. dh_shlibdeps will pick it up on its own, with a more accurate dependency. 6. I'm not sure why libctpl-doc recommends libglib2.0-doc. Is that really necessary? Apart from that, I think the package looks fine :-) -- Kind regards, Loong Jin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
