[Debichem-devel] libegad is ready?

[LI Daobing]

On 6/20/07, Daniel Leidert <daniel.leidert.spam at gmx.net> wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 19.06.2007, 23:44 +0800 schrieb LI Daobing:
>
> > it sounds that libegad is ready. who can help me check it, thanks
>
> Just a few notes:
>
> - The library package: What about using the same way we used for mpqc's
> libsc or libint to create libegad at SO_NAME@ via debian/rules and create
> debian/control from a template debian/control.in.
>
> - In the patch 01_makefile_library.dpatch you change from building the
> static library to creating the libtool archive - most library packages
> dropped the libtool archives, because this often lead to issues - what
> are your intentions to provide the libtool archive and drop the static
> library (the patch does not contain a description)?
>
> - What about a -dbg package using dh_strip?
>
> - The debian/rules file contains many commented debhelper script calls -
> these should be removed.
>
> - debian/rules defines CFLAGS, but doesn't provide it during 'make' run.
> So this is pretty useless. You can call
>
> make CFLAGS="$(CFLAGS)" LDFLAGS="$(LDFLAGS)"
>
> but note, that this overrides every CFLAGS/LDFLAGS definition in the
> Makefile! You can only try to set
>
> CFLAGS += $(CFLAGS set in Makefile)
>
> in the makefile.
>
> - libegad-doc.doc-base IMO contains an invalid section: The section
> should follow the Debian menu policy (see the doc-base documentation and
> http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/menu-policy/ch2.html#s2.1) -
> I suggest "Apps/Science" if that fits the documentation content.
>
> - libEgad.pc: It's nice that you provide a pkg-config file, but it
> normally only makes sense, when upstream provides it - because a
> pkg-config file only available on Debian is pretty useless for
> programmers.
>
> - debian/copyright is wrong: The package is licensed under LGPL, not
> GPL.
>
> Attached is a small patch for debian/copyright and debian/control. Just
> take a look at it. The patch doesn't solve everything mentioned above.
>
> BTW: If lintian complains about the chosen libarary package name
> (because the package is called libegad and the libraray libEgad), then
> we are allowed to use a lintian override.
> Regards, Daniel
>
>
thanks, I'll check it later


-- 
LI Daobing