pwlib/opal

[Faidon Liambotis]

[please do not use top posting]

First of all let me apologize for being unresponsive; I'm extremely busy
unfortunately (it seems it's a plague within the team :) and I promise
I'll give a better look when I find some free time.

Eugen Dedu 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))
No, as I told you before, that's wrong.
You should communicate with upstream to get the whole ABI issue resolved
and/or name your packages libpt2.3-beta1 and libopal3.3-beta1 respectively.

lintian should have warned you about that IIRC.

> - the version is 0.svn2008MMDD-1 (like ffmpeg package), is it ok?
Version of what?
For libpt you should probably use 2.3~svnYYYYMMDD-1 or even better
2.3~svnRRRR-1 (for revision number). Likewise for opal.

> - 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
That is correct; iLBC is non-free, both its source and its binary.

You should remove it from the source and repack the orig.tar.gz.
[right now you don't have an orig.tar.gz but at some point you will...]

Have a look at other packages' get-orig-source for that, e.g. asterisk.

> - where the .svn directories should be removed in rules file: in
> get-orig-source, in clean or in install/binary-common/... stuff?  ATM
> they are removed in get-orig-source, but removing in clean target for
> ex. should be cleaner IMO
get-orig-source should use "svn export" which doesn't produce .svn AFAIK.

Regards,
Faidon