sofia-sip packaging considerations

[George Danchev]

On Thursday 15 June 2006 17:20, Mark Purcell wrote:
> 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.

Good idea. Sheduled into TODO.Debian for the time being.

> > 	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..

Done.

> > 	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.

Right. Fully agreed. 

> 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 :-)

Done in the Right Way [TM]. In fact I did not spot that one because I use 
lintian from stable for a while and it did not check for that one. I'll staty 
on the safe side from now on ;-)e, e.g. safe as of sid ;-)

> > 	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.

Contents appended to the debian/copyright. 
	I did read the whole COPYRIGHTS file, but sent a ping to -legal to get some 
comments on that large pile of copyrights. 

> 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?

In fact linking with openssl is optional, but I want it be with us if we can 
deal with that as well. Currently in TODO, I'll need some time to examine 
OpenSSL exception thing.

-- 
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB