Hi Jon, how's the packaging going? My remarks below:
> The source package would have multiple binary packages: > - flif (command line tool) > - libflif (shared library) > - viewflif (simple image/animation viewer) > - gif2flif (shell script) > - apng2flif (shell script) I would recommend the following layout, based on my experience: - libflif0 (shared library) - libflif-dev (development files) - flif-doc (documentation) - flif-tools or flif-bin or flif (tools and scripts) No-need to split the tools package further, I believe. Otherwise, your package would introduce a new binary package everytime a new script is introduced, which would unnecessarily delay the upload to the archive. > I am trying to put all necessary Debian packaging config files > directly in the upstream git repository, at: > https://github.com/FLIF-hub/FLIF This practice is discouraged. Please don't embed the Debian packaging files in the upstream repository. You might want to maintain them in a separate branch instead for the time being. Have a look at what I have done with field3d: https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-phototools/field3d.git > I hope to have flif included in the Debian archive when this release > will be announced. Well, this is up-to you and the quality of your packaging work. > it would help to have a more experienced co-maintainer who can check > and improve my effort at packaging. Consider joining the phototools team and host your packaging repository there, so that experienced maintainers like me can interact directly. Good luck, Ghislain
