Looking through the build files I'm wondering if we can't do some clean-up and remove extraneous kruft before we release. Like the config.dbs and the README.build that talks about the config.dbs. From looking through the build setup I don't see either file actually critically needed and looks like Ralph may have come to a similar conclusion by the comments added to the README.build file. Also looking at the various *.install files I think a lil bit of shuffling of which package contains what might be in order. I notice that the libxen-dev simply has the header files and the COPYING doc file (which appears to be put in the wrong location). While libxen3.0 has all the static (*.a) and dynamic (*.so*) libraries. Typically as I've seen done in a great many packages is that the .a static libraries and the .so dynamic libraries go in the -dev package while the .so.<version> and .so.<full-version> dynamic libraries make it in the actual library package. This is the case with libfwbuilder that I maintain as well as I've seen in X11, ncurses and many others. I think for consistency and the fact the .a and .so libraries are only needed for development we should go ahead and change this. As I've said I want to see this work by consensus rather than dictatorship I'd like some input before I commit these changes. I think we're getting a good jump on things and we should with any luck have some packaging to test soon. I've got a 64bit AMD waiting on xen-3.0 so I can move my mail and web server from VMWare. Regards, Jeremy -- ------------------------ [ SECURITY NOTICE ] ------------------------ To: pkg-xen-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org. For your security, jbouse@debian.org digitally signed this message on 17 February 2006 at 20:34:30 UTC. Verify this digital signature at http://www.ciphire.com/verify. ------------------- [ CIPHIRE DIGITAL SIGNATURE ] ------------------- Q2lwaGlyZSBTaWcuAjhwa2cteGVuLWRldmVsQGxpc3RzLmFsaW90aC5kZWJpYW4ub3JnA Gpib3VzZUBkZWJpYW4ub3JnAGVtYWlsIGJvZHkA7wQAAHwAfAAAAAEAAABWM/ZD7wQAAD IDAAIAAgACACBbbe/kx8tpUyJhmgvpubSxgZmn0dxD/KgljpsTpsvZVQEAJLQlVT52rnd nqox8AzyHB09mthbDWqsaMF1UXyCm8B7TpS2u68vc2SP79WnKIQTbgqm++En7S7Rsr+9z 6+KzmklNkDyQU2lnRW5k --------------------- [ END DIGITAL SIGNATURE ] ---------------------
On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 12:34:30PM -0800, Jeremy T. Bouse [c] wrote:> Jeremy says a lot of things [...]Yes, this seems the good way to go. Fine with me. PS: I will probably test and work on packages a bit this week-end! -- Julien Danjou .''`. Debian Developer : :' : http://julien.danjou.info `. `' http://people.debian.org/~acid `- 9A0D 5FD9 EB42 22F6 8974 C95C A462 B51E C2FE E5CD -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-xen-devel/attachments/20060217/0d8ff136/attachment.pgp
Am Freitag, 17. Februar 2006 21:34 schrieb Jeremy T. Bouse [c]:> Looking through the build files I'm wondering if we can't do some > clean-up and remove extraneous kruft before we release. Like the > config.dbs and the README.build that talks about the config.dbs. From > looking through the build setup I don't see either file actually > critically needed and looks like Ralph may have come to a similar > conclusion by the comments added to the README.build file.*ack* both files are old and not needed anymore.> Also looking at the various *.install files I think a lil bit of > shuffling of which package contains what might be in order. I notice > that the libxen-dev simply has the header files and the COPYING doc file > (which appears to be put in the wrong location). While libxen3.0 has all > the static (*.a) and dynamic (*.so*) libraries. > > Typically as I've seen done in a great many packages is that the .a > static libraries and the .so dynamic libraries go in the -dev package > while the .so.<version> and .so.<full-version> dynamic libraries make it > in the actual library package. This is the case with libfwbuilder that I > maintain as well as I've seen in X11, ncurses and many others. I think > for consistency and the fact the .a and .so libraries are only needed > for development we should go ahead and change this.*ack* again...> As I've said I want to see this work by consensus rather than > dictatorship I'd like some input before I commit these changes. I think > we're getting a good jump on things and we should with any luck have > some packaging to test soon. I've got a 64bit AMD waiting on xen-3.0 so > I can move my mail and web server from VMWare.I woul> > Regards, > Jeremy > > > -- > ------------------------ [ SECURITY NOTICE ] ------------------------ > To: pkg-xen-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org. > For your security, jbouse@debian.org > digitally signed this message on 17 February 2006 at 20:34:30 UTC. > Verify this digital signature at http://www.ciphire.com/verify. > ------------------- [ CIPHIRE DIGITAL SIGNATURE ] ------------------- > Q2lwaGlyZSBTaWcuAjhwa2cteGVuLWRldmVsQGxpc3RzLmFsaW90aC5kZWJpYW4ub3JnA > Gpib3VzZUBkZWJpYW4ub3JnAGVtYWlsIGJvZHkA7wQAAHwAfAAAAAEAAABWM/ZD7wQAAD > IDAAIAAgACACBbbe/kx8tpUyJhmgvpubSxgZmn0dxD/KgljpsTpsvZVQEAJLQlVT52rnd > nqox8AzyHB09mthbDWqsaMF1UXyCm8B7TpS2u68vc2SP79WnKIQTbgqm++En7S7Rsr+9z > 6+KzmklNkDyQU2lnRW5k > --------------------- [ END DIGITAL SIGNATURE ] --------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > Pkg-xen-devel mailing list > Pkg-xen-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-xen-devel