[Android-tools-devel] Updating android-platform-system-core

[Markus Koschany]

Hi,

Am 10.07.2015 um 18:42 schrieb 殷啟聰:
[...]
> 1. How should we define the version of the source package?
> platform/dalvik produces tools belonging to both SDK Built-tools and
> SDK Platform-tools, but this two toolsets have different version
> numbers. Should we simply use "android-5.1.1_r6" as the version
> number? Or "5.1.1~r6"?

I suppose r stands for (pre)release and the next "real" release will be
5.1.2 or similar. Then it makes sense to use 5.1.1~r6 because the number
is smaller than 5.1.2. This is a common pattern in Debian.


> 2. Why is the architecture of android-platform-system-core packages is
> "linux-any" instead of "any"?

It seems the build failed at least on kfreebsd architectures.

https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=android-platform-system-core&arch=kfreebsd-amd64

This may be a temporary problem with the buildd, a bug in
android-platform-system-core or upstream doesn't support
freebsd/kfreebsd at all. I don't think the latter is true because I can
find several Android related ports for FreeBSD, e.g.

https://www.freshports.org/devel/android-tools-adb/

So the decision to build only for Linux should be reconsidered.

> 3. Are executables looks for .so files recursively under /usr/lib/ or
> /lib/ ? libzipfile.so and other Android libraries are placed under
> /usr/lib/android/ but I do not see any specific configuration for
> that.

You can find an dh_shlibdeps override in debian/rules. From the man page
of dh_shlibdeps:

 -ldirectory[:directory ...]
With recent versions of dpkg-shlibdeps, this option is generally not
needed. It tells dpkg-shlibdeps (via its -l parameter), to look for
private package libraries in the specified directory (or directories --
separate with colons). With recent versions of dpkg-shlibdeps, this is
mostly only useful for packages that build multiple flavors of the same
library, or other situations where the library is installed into a
directory not on the regular library search path.


> 4. Why the .so version is 0.21.0? For example libzipfile.so.0.21.0,
> why is it not libzipfile.so.21?

I guess that's a question for upstream because they define the
versioning. :)

Regards,

Markus



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 949 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/android-tools-devel/attachments/20150710/959399e1/attachment.sig>