SDL 2.0 RC1 and DirectFB

[Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo]

Bleargh, replied to Felix instead of to the list in the previous reply...

2013/6/1 Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo at gmail.com>:
> Everything OK, just a comment:
>
> 2013/6/1 Felix Geyer <fgeyer at debian.org>:
>>> And now that we are at it, I thikn that all binary packages should be
>>> named libsdl2 (with -dev/-doc/-dbg/-etc), libsdl2-module (also
>>> libsdl-module-dev/-doc/-dbg/-etc).
>>
>> The Debian policy says library (binary) packages should be named
>> librarynameSOVERSION or libraryname-SOVERSION.
>> For example the package for libSDL_image-1.2.so.0 should have been called
>> libsdl-image-1.2-0.
>>
>> I'd expect for SDL2_image it would be libsdl2-image0.
>> The dev and debug packages could then be called libsdl2-image-dev and
>> libsdl2-image-dbg.
>
> Oh yes, I left aside sonames/versions, I was mostly talking about the
> prefix.  My suggestion of prefix matches your string "libsdl2-image0",
> just without the SO version.
>
> I think that "libsdl2-image-dev" is all right (as far as it's
> backwards compatible for all 2 series), but I am not sure if
> "libsdl2-image-dbg" is valid or it should follow the library binary --
> "libsdl2-image0-dbg".
>
> I am sure that you will look at the documentation if necessary and the
> lintian warnings, and that will do the right thing.
>
> Feel free if you want to package all available modules.  From my part,
> I will start in a few days with the ones that I take care the most in
> 1.2 series, mixer and net, as time permits and when RCs are available.
>
>
> Cheers.
> --
> Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo at gmail.com>