sdlgfx 2.0.25

[Gianfranco Costamagna]

Il Martedì 14 Gennaio 2014 1:05, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo at gmail.com> ha scritto:

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.
>


Thanks for the explanation, I like the new name!

>
>>> 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.
>

Yes, that warning was already fixed, I had already removed the lintian override and started with the right package name
>
>> No problem, please wait for my git push instead of reviewing the tarball :)
>
>OK.
>
>
Done!

I have just a few warnings left

X: sdl2gfx source: deprecated-configure-filename


should be repoted upstream, right?


N: Processing binary package libsdl2-gfx-1.0-0 (version 1.0.0-1, arch amd64) ...
W: libsdl2-gfx-1.0-0: new-package-should-close-itp-bug
N: ----
N: Processing binary package libsdl2-gfx-dev (version 1.0.0-1, arch amd64) ...
W: libsdl2-gfx-dev: new-package-should-close-itp-bug
N: ----
N: Processing binary package libsdl2-gfx-doc (version 1.0.0-1, arch all) ...
W: libsdl2-gfx-doc: new-package-should-close-itp-bug


I don't care too much, should we open an itp bug?


W: libsdl2-gfx-doc: embedded-javascript-library usr/share/doc/libsdl2-gfx-doc/jquery.js


I saw this warning in some other packages, should we symlink jquery?


I: libsdl2-gfx-doc: possible-documentation-but-no-doc-base-registration


I'm not sure about how to fix this lintian "error"

Thanks, Hope the work is almost done!

Gianfranco


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