From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lucy.dinwoodie.org (lucy.dinwoodie.org [IPv6:2001:8b0:de15:20ad:6beb:fd8f:c6fd:d1ac]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC16A3858D32 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2023 22:49:50 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org BC16A3858D32 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=dinwoodie.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dinwoodie.org Received: from adam by lucy.dinwoodie.org with local (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1pHBoy-00016R-1x; Sun, 15 Jan 2023 22:49:48 +0000 Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2023 22:49:48 +0000 From: Adam Dinwoodie To: Jon Turney Cc: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Subject: Re: [ITP] libinih Message-ID: <20230115224948.fxpb3g5aj4ipcp5w@lucy.dinwoodie.org> References: <20230109163223.74r473jljrxx5zsv@lucy.dinwoodie.org> <0ab55d15-f73d-b471-52c4-07c6acc829fb@dronecode.org.uk> <20230111231637.dbjlug2kpb2oa47i@lucy.dinwoodie.org> <95f61c82-c125-9b93-d7b4-58ba95ee2350@dronecode.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <95f61c82-c125-9b93-d7b4-58ba95ee2350@dronecode.org.uk> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 02:27:46PM +0000, Jon Turney wrote: > On 11/01/2023 23:16, Adam Dinwoodie via Cygwin-apps wrote: > > On Wed 11 Jan 2023 at 03:14:20PM +0000, Jon Turney wrote: > > > On 09/01/2023 16:32, Adam Dinwoodie via Cygwin-apps wrote: > > > > As requested at [0], I've offered to package libinih for Cygwin. It has > > > > a BSD license[1] and is already packaged for a bunch of *nix distros, > > > > including Fedora, Debian and Arch[2]. > > > > > [...] > > > This looks good, except... > > > > > > I'd ask you to split this into libinih0 and libinih-devel packages. > [...] > > > > Makes sense! Here's a rebuild: > > > > https://github.com/me-and/Cygwin-inih/releases/tag/v56-1-rc2 > Thanks. > > I added this to your packages. > > > NAME=libinih > > Since the upstream name is just 'inih', the source package should probably > be named that also. Can I double-check how that should work from a package naming perspective? I *think* that means we'd have: - libinih0-$PVR, being the libraries themselves - libinih0-debuginfo-$PVR, being the debugging symbols for the libraries - inih-devel-$PVR, being the header, static libraries and pkgconfig files - inih-$PVR.src, being the source code Is that right? In particular, is it right that the debuginfo name matches the library, while the devel package doesn't? Or should it only be the source package that has a different name? (The build linked above as rc2 has the debuginfo package as inih-debuginfo, and the devel package as libinih-devel, but on reflection that doesn't seem quite right to me. If nothing else, I think I'd expect to find the debug symbols in a package with the same name as the package I'm debugging...) > > libinih0_CONTENTS="\ > > usr/bin/*.dll\ > > usr/share/\ > > " > > You probably want to write this glob as '*-0.dll', so that when the > soversion changes, packaging fails, rather than silently ploughing on to > contain a libinit0 containing cyginit-1.dll... > > (Or factor out the soversion as variable, or something...) Done, thank you for the suggestion!