Thank you very much, your way of versioning is perfect. I have now
uploaded the new Ubuntu package, merging everything from before:
Roland, your versioning, your firmware handling, and your distribution
of files to the binary packages
Pascal, your use of jam for Argyll, to make the package more easily
maintainable, and your introduction of quilt.
Someone whose name I do not find has introduced an argyll-dbg package.
I have restructured the package so that everything non-upstream goes
into debian/, made libicc using autoconf/automake while the rest is
using jam, and fixed the build on Oneiric.
I hope I did not forget anything.
The result is now in Ubuntu Universe and I will post a Main Inclusion
Request (MIR) to get it into Main for Oneiric.
Till
On 08/05/2011 02:48 PM, Roland Mas wrote:
Till Kamppeter, 2011-08-05 14:05:25 +0200 :
Hi,
I am introducing Color Management in Ubuntu and therefore I have
updated the Argyll package. There I have discovered, that there are
two source Debian packages, argyll and libicc which are based on the
same source tarball. I want to merge these two packages to make
maintenance easier.
Actually, they've been merged already. The argyll source package in
experimental generates the argyll, libicc-dev and libicc2 binary
packages.
Problem is that the version number used for libicc is the API/ABI
version number 2.12 which is much higher than the 1.3.3 of the
upstream tarball. Ho should I proceed to make the resulting package
being well accepted by Debian? Should I introduce an epoch?
There's a hack in the packaging that results in the version number for
the libicc2 package to actually be 2.12+argyll1.3.0-3, even though the
source package has version 1.3.0-3. I suggest you keep that hack at
least until upstream adopts good ABI/API practices, and then use an
epoch if needed.
Roland.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-printing-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e3c96ed.9080...@gmail.com
