sdlgfx 2.0.25

[Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo]

2014/1/13 Gianfranco Costamagna <costamagnagianfranco at yahoo.it>:
>
>> Il Lunedì 13 Gennaio 2014 19:59, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo at gmail.com> ha scritto:
>> > 2014/1/13 Gianfranco Costamagna <costamagnagianfranco at yahoo.it>:
>>>  Hi Manuel, I created a simple (building) sdl2gfx package.
>>>
>>>  Can you please review/push on git or create a new git for pushing the
>> package?
>>
>> I already created it a few weeks ago:
>>
>>   http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-sdl/packages/libsdl2-gfx.git
>>
>
> Now I understand why I didn't see it before... the previous one was sdlgfx.git, and the upstream project is SDL2_gfx so I was looking for something like sdl2gfx, without the "lib"...
>
> Seems that with the "2" release every package has been moved to a name with the "lib" prepending, well

Well, several of the sources that we have came with different names,
like "libsdl1.2", "sdl-mixer1.2", "libsdl-console", etc.

We decided to name them in the same fashion for all, and most libs in
Debian are called starting with "lib", not only the binary packages
but often also their source packages (if they are only libraries, and,
say, not CUPS).

That's the story behind the harmonisation of names.


>> Name (source) should be libsdl2-gfx in principle, to follow the
>> pattern.  See "mixer" or "image" for examples on binary
>> package names.
>> The names are defined in debian/control.
>>
>
> Yes, I know debian/control :) I think the names are almost ok, however I think I'll add a "1.0" before the debian revision, to keep the package name coherent with the mixer one

The binary library should be named in a special name according to the
SONAME/SOVERSION.

lintian will complain and inform you about the correct name if it
doesn't follow the pattern.


> No problem, please wait for my git push instead of reviewing the tarball :)

OK.


Cheers.
-- 
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo at gmail.com>