[Debichem-devel] Packaging of spglib

[Michael Banck]

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 09:46:48AM +0300, Andrius Merkys wrote:
> On 03/27/2018 08:02 PM, Alex Mestiashvili wrote:
> > Not sure that I understand the question correctly.
> > I would expect that breaking changes in the minor versions are wrong by
> > design. 

Mabe they consider 1.2, 1.4 as major versions, some projects do. Then
again, they might not break compatibility each time, which kinda makes
this moot, dunno.

> > But in general it is the maintainers decision which version to
> > support. If a new version introduces problems then it makes sense to
> > resolve the problems ( for example by talking to upstream) before
> > uploading the package.
> 
> I agree. I have finished packaging spglib in
> https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/spglib (in science-team as the
> initial packaging had been done there by Yann Pouillon). Now I am
> looking for a sponsor for it.

Some more review comments:

1. It seems the upstream cmake build system wants to install the library
in its lib/ subdirectory in the source tree, this should be patched so
it installs into /usr (and then DESTDIR should work correctly).

2. The python build stuff should probably be in
dh_(override_)auto_build, or it might just work as-is.

3. Why no -dev package? There's a static library and a header file that
is being installed upstream, but not shipped by your package.

4. In general, having the library version the same as the package
version (libsymspg.so.1.10.3) is quite dubious. But I guess it is ok as
long as upstream does not (again) break compatibility in the 1.x
releases. If they do, we will have to rename the package to libsympg2 or
libsympg1deb1 or something.


Michael