Re: trivial patch for debian/control typo

2006/11/24, Philip Van Hoof <spam pvanhoof be>:
On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 10:36 +0100, Øystein Gisnås wrote:

> Which brings me on to versions. Why is version 1.0.0 used in
> if it might be changed to 0.x one day? In my opinion it's
> better to fix that or stick with 1.0.0~svn.... if the versions never
> will be lowered.

The first release will be 1.0.0, as that will also be a API stable one.
I will not do 0.x.y releases, I will do 1.x.y releases in case they
don't break API nor ABI.

Each subsequent release that does, will be called 1+n.x.y where n is > 0

Which means it should be safe to use 1.0.0~svn... now. In Debian, ~ is
implemented to always come first sort-order-wise.

> The scripts itself look fancy enough, but they don't compile with me.
> I think the problem is that ./ always has exit status 1
> which leads 'make' to back out.

Can you try to figure out how come it has this exit status?

I'm on XP at work right now, but my guess is that the warnings about
some missing files (which are harmless) trigger the exit status.

> Thomas is right about >= typo and mozilla build-deps. Well spotted!
> Do you have a suggestion for how to split the libraries? One .so file
> in each package and a corresponding -dev? What other things did you
> miss in the -dev package?

Each libtinymailSOMETHING should be a different package with its own
-dev package.

As stated before, I agree with this. The aim should be to create a
layout that works for desktop users that wanna try the demo and a
flexible starting point that fits mostly every debian based system
with only small modifications (like dependency versions) and a

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]