sofia-sip packaging considerations

[Mark Purcell]

On Thursday 15 June 2006 22:14, George Danchev wrote:
> 	I have some things I'd like to discuss about sofia-sip packaging, not
> critical though, but a question of 'best practises' ;-) I'd like to name
> the package right, rather that fixing that subsequently after hitting Sid.

Great!

You might also want to run with a sofia-sip-doc package as a fair amount of 
documentation can be generated via doxygen.

> 	1) -bin package - I have a binary package sofia-sip which content binary
> executable suitable for development and test purposes. I think it best to
> be named sofia-sip-bin, what do you think ?

Yes, I think -bin is fine..

> 	2) lib* and *-dev packages - having a look at libpkg-guide [1] to consult
> of how to name these packages according to the SONAME I grabbed the scripts
> listed there...  Running that over the shared object
> libsofia-sip-ua.so.0.0.0, suggested package names are:
> libsofia-sip-ua0
> libsofia-sip-ua0-dev

lintian is expecting libsofia-sip-ua0:

W: libsofia-sip-ua: package-name-doesnt-match-sonames libsofia-sip-ua0
N:
N:   The package name of a library package should usually reflect the
N:   soname of the included library. The package name can determined from
N:   the library file name with the following code snippet:
N:
N:    $ objdump -p /path/to/libfoo-bar.so.1.2.3 | 
sed -n -e's/^[[:space:]]*SONAME[[:space:]]*//p' | 
sed -e's/\([0-9]\)\.so\./\1-/; s/\.so\.//'
N:
N:   Refer to Library Packaging guide 5 for details.

So I would run with that.

There are really two schools of thought with the naming of the -dev package.

Personally my preference is -dev with the soname, that way, it is only a 
binary rebuild for soname changes of dependant packages.  Otherwise you need 
to change the dependant package everytime the soname changes on the -dev 
package, not just rebuild.

> 	Since dpkg claims that the versions having 0 and not having 0 are equal
> [2] I think it is best to leave these packages names as:
> libsofia-sip-ua
> libsofia-sip-ua-dev

I don't agree with that.  I think we would be better with libsofia-sip-ua0 & 
libsofia-sip-ua-dev.  Otherwise lintian will complain, we like to keep 
lintian fed well :-)

> 	When the SONAME get bumped, we will adjust these names accordingly.

Good..  Looks like upstream are running well with soname stability which is 
good.

The other issue which worth considering is the licencing issue, the documented 
copyright of the files in sofia-sip-1.11.9/COPYRIGHTS could be a cause for 
pain.  I would suggest you append the contents of that to debian/copyright.

Also I wonder if we need some sort of upstream OpenSSL exception, such as 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSSL_exception as sofia-sip links with SSL?

Mark