[pkg-fso-maint] Anyone working on packaging libeflvala (EFL Vala Bindings)? Or should I attempt to do so?

[Visti Andresen]

On Sat, 22 May 2010 13:03:08 +0300
Timo Jyrinki <timo.jyrinki at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2010/5/22 Visti Andresen <talpa at talpa.dk>:
> > What should the package be called?
> > ----------------------------------
> > libeflvala seems wrong as it is not a actual library that a user
> > installs. libeflvala-dev seems a bit odd as I then would normally
> > expect that there should be a non -dev version as well. efl-vala is
> > more like gupnp-vala (UPnP Vala bindings) but does not contain the
> > original name in full.
> 
> Well, png++ was packaged to have the literki keyboard, and is maybe a
> bit similar? http://packages.qa.debian.org/p/png++.html. That would
> sort out to efl-vala source package with libeflvala-dev binary
> package.
I haven't tried a full ./configure yet, just copied the .deps
and .vapi files to the correct directory.
(Which allowed me to compile iliwi)
I do not believe that the package requires to compile/generate any
output.
One package should be sufficient. 

My knowledge of vala is very limited, but I believe that libeflvala
only consists of some dependency information and wrapper code that
assists the vala compiler in generating the final executable.

libeflvala's runtime requirements are some of the e17 libraries.
efl-vala or what ever it might end up being called should probably just
depend on the -dev versions of those libraries (and valac).

I believe that I prefer efl-vala as the package name, as it is just a
binding/extension for vala, and not a library as such.

> 
> > As git does not use an incrementing version number and there are no
> > "releases" with a X.Y.Z version number. Should I just use the date
> > of the git commit as version number (git20100126)?
> >
> > A pure date satisfies http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide section
> > "2.3 Package name and version" but other packages like
> > fso-frameworkd has a version 0.9.5.9+git20100131-4.
> > Any preferences/best practice hints?
> 
> I don't feel like an expert in these matters, but I followed the
> example from xf86-video-glamo to version literki as
> 0.0.0+20100113.git1da40724-1.

I suppose prefixing the date with a version string has an advantage if
it is ever becomes necessary to revert to an older version of the code.

And including the git id is helpful if one want to get the code from
upstream/report bugs.

The "-1" is used for indicating different version that only differ in
the debian/ folder content? 

> 
> -Timo
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pkg-fso-maint mailing list
> pkg-fso-maint at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-fso-maint