pwlib/opal

[Mark Purcell]

- I called binaries libpt-2.3 etc. and libopal-3.3; however, the soname
are libpt.so.2.3-beta1 and libopal.so.3.3-beta1; I suppose this is ok
(developers have not answered for ABI changing, but as it is about a
beta, I suppose the ABI won't break (so much))

As Faidon points out this isn't a great way of doing things. Debian is pretty good with maintenance of binaray compatability when we can. If upstream call there soname something wierd we can follow. Given it is currently beta1, we don't want to break future releases of Debian if later upstream drop the beta1. and as you say the 3.3 release could be soon :-)

Also this brings a lintian error so probably wouldn't get through NEW any way for this reason.

One question though. Do you see any merit in keeping the release name in the package, ie titian, and should we be doing the same 4 these packages ie bernard, centaer

- the version is 0.svn2008MMDD-1 (like ffmpeg package), is it ok?

I think better would be 3.3~svn$(REV) and the change log should follow on from 2.2

- dfsg should be added to opal name because of the removal of iLBC.  I 
fear that iLBC *sources* (not only the .so) should be removed, which is 
cumbersome.  I also need to add an info in README.Debian: "iLBC, H264, 
H263... codecs have been removed.", I'll do it this evening if you wish

Great. We have been fairly robust with hunting down iLBC and killing it from the free debian archive. Again this wouldn't pass NEW. And we have influoced other projects to not ship iLBC :-)

- finally, don't forget to update to latest SVN right before uploading 
(I can check them right before), they are in bug fixes stage.  Anyway, I 
am building them almost each day.

Will do. I presume you up date REV to the best in debian/rules as necessary. But i will also look out 4 release.

I have a few hrs this afternoon and should be able to bang on svn to make almost ready packages.

Mark