pwlib/opal

[Eugen Dedu]

Hi Mark,

Thanks for working on this.

Mark Purcell wrote:
> - 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.

You're right.  I have waited to much for the stable release, let's call 
the binaries beta and push them in experimental.  Could you do it?

> 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

I don't know if I understand your question, but:

1. I prefer to remove the release name (titan, centauri etc.) everywhere
2. I don't think there is a good idea to make packages for other 
versions (by the way we do not have so much time...), the last version 
is sufficient

> - 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

Ok, could you do it (or do you prefer that I do it myself)?

> - 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 :-)

I have removed iLBC sources a few days ago (my last commits).

> - 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.

They are changing the configuration system.  I think it's better to push 
them in experimental with the SVN version in the package.  I will do 
changes in a few days, when the ptlib configuration and our rules file 
are synchronised (for ex. there are patches which will normally be 
included upstream).

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

If you can remove "almost" from the previous sentence it would be even 
better :o)

Eugen