[Debian-med-packaging] RFS: pbbam (NEW)

[Andreas Tille]

Hi Afif,

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 02:52:13AM -0700, Afif Elghraoui wrote:
> > I'm not sure if the package is really finished since there is a
> > debian/TODO file with open items.  I think package names and sections
> > looks OK but I wonder about the versioning (second item in TODO file).
> 
> Thanks for catching that. I completely forgot about it. It should be
> fixed now.

OK.
 
> > I have built the package and I noticed that the libpbbam-dev does not
> > contain a static library in addition to the *.so link.  This is what
> > usually is provided in lib*-dev packages (if the build system can be
> > tweaked to provide dynamic *and* static libraries).  I do not think
> > that this is a strong requirement but wanted to mention this in case
> > you might not be aware of it.
> 
> I didn't think the static library would be very helpful anyway.

You can not think about what users sometimes request.  My first package
I was creating (wordnet) did not had a development library package but
users asked for wordnet-dev later.  But we could surely wait until a
user might raise such a request (preferably with patch ...)
 
> > I also noticed that the library package name is laking a soname version.
> 
> There is no soname version on this library. I understood from the
> lintian warning that lacking a soversion is not really a problem if the
> library is being used internally, which, as of now, is actually the
> case. Following the recommendation in the lintian warning, I put the
> library in a subdirectory of /usr/lib/$(DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH)

OK.
 
> > I usually use dh-shlibs (have a look for instance in libmems, snp-sites
> > or other packages with libraries).  This is not mandatory but saves you
> > from some mistakes (like forgetting a soname).  You might like to check
> > out these examples if you want to use d-shlibs as well (which I would
> > recommend).  Its a small learning effort that pays off in the end.
> 
> I actually tried this first, but then it would fail saying it could not
> find a package providing libhts1. It's all in the git history.

lib_hts_1??? I guess d-shlibs was using objdump or some other tricks to
detect the "1" as a potential soname.  May be there was a cut-n-pasto
involved when guessing "hts" as the lib name.
 
> Are there any other potential issues?

Not that I would be aware of.

I'll upload in the next couple of hours

       Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de