Dear Neil, I have a new package ready at: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libitpp/libitpp_3.99.2-1.dsc
On 01/07/07, Neil Williams wrote:
> > A -dbg package needs to be provided. > > (-dbg packages are likely to become mandatory by Lenny.)
Done this.
In practical terms, not all those who need the -dev package are actually writing new software with that -dev. A lot are simply *building* reverse dependencies of that -dev. When someone needs to build pilot-qof, there is no need for them to have libqof-doc, they only need libqof-dev. Such issues also affect the autobuilders - there is no need for them to have the doc content when trying to build a dependency using the -dev.
I understand this well. It's just that IT++ isn't meant to be a library used by applications, though I don't discount that. Mostly, it's for writing simulation programs for various communication schemes etc., with many of GNU Octave or Matlab type features. But, I am also in favour of splitting the docs.
No, tidying up the short descriptions so that the new packages are not simple copies (as the -dev is currently).
I got this. Please look into the package now.
? You should always build your own packages with pbuilder at least once for each upstream release - if only to ensure you have the Build-Depends right. Simply watching or reading the pdebuild log will show you that your package brings in more packages than a relatively large GUI application. Please look beyond your own package and try to anticipate problems.
Henceforth I shall be more aware. And the above debs are made using pbuilder.
> However, I guess I can drop dependency on atlas (see > http://itpp.sourceforge.net/index.php?wiki=About ), though I'd consult upstream > before doing that. Yes, the reduced functionality is a concern. Upstream may be able to separate the codebase so that you can create a libitpp-atlas6 and libittp6 that would be without atlas - one conflicting and replacing the other (not ideal) or one complementing the other by adding new files without replacing libittp6 (harder to do upstream).
Right now, I've just removed the atlas3 dependency. Please check it out, and I'll also talk to upstream about it. However, I don't think features are lost by this change. If anything, performance will be affected, to the best of my understanding.
Just put your email address into the subscribe box at: http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/atlas3.html
Have done this.
> I am an "end-user" of this package, and not very familiar with the dependencies. > Therefore, I didn't see the storm brewing. Hmm. The New Maintainer Guide does clearly warn about packaging libraries. What is the application that uses libittp? As sponsor I can help with libittp issues and advise on other general issues but you do need to take a lot of this on board yourself and find your own motivation to look beyond the specific package and into the issues that are just waiting to become *your* problems later.
I accept this advice. But note that it is highly unlikely that a mathematical simulation type toolkit type library like IT++ will have any applications based on it, though the possibility cannot be discounted. Anyway, I promise a more proactive role in the Debian packaging procedure. After all, I am to be "mentored", right? :-)
> > > The package is lintian clean. > > > > No, it is not.
It is now. Thanks a lot for your inputs. I am sure the package is a lot better now, but please do mail in your comments for changes, and I shall incorporate them. Thanks again! Kumar -- Kumar Appaiah, 462, Jamuna Hostel, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai - 600036 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
