sdlgfx 2.0.25

[Gianfranco Costamagna]

Sorry for double-posting, I'm also not sure about the debian/control build-dependencies, I tried to keep them synced with other packages, but I honestly think we can safely remove a couple of them
also I disabled usr/lib/*/pkgconfig in debian/libsdl2-gfx-dev.install because it seems to be not built.

Bests,

G.




> Il Martedì 14 Gennaio 2014 11:52, Gianfranco Costamagna <costamagnagianfranco at yahoo.it> ha scritto:
> > 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>
>> 
>> 
>