SDL 2.0 RC1 and DirectFB

[Felix Geyer]

On 01.06.2013 19:27, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
> 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".

Both are valid. It doesn't make much difference since the soversion stays
the same for SDL libraries anyway. I would use libsdl2-image-dbg as we
already using that scheme for libsdl2.

>> 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.

I'll leave those to you but I don't think release candidates are
available yet.

In libsdl2 I'll drop the udeb since it doesn't have any video output
anymore without directfb. The Debian installer has transitioned to X.org
some time ago anyway so the udeb is probably obsolete.

Cheers,
Felix