[PPL-devel] Re: RFC: packaging the PPL for RedHat and Debian

[Matthew Mundell]

>> And, in all this separation: should we have both libppl-c and libppl-c-dev?
>> One with the shared library and one with the static one?
>> Arent we going to end up with 20 or so packages for something
>> that is not really that complicate such as the PPL?
>> Let us think about this.
>>
> Well - do you really think we should have more than one -dev -package?
> In boost, they do that - but each package provides quite a few
> header-files - which is AFAIK not the case for ppl!?
>
> I'd opt for
>
> - libppl<soversion>
> - libppl-<language><soversion>
> - libppl-dev
> - libppl-doc

An alternative:

 - libppl5
 - libppl5-<language>
 - libppl5-dev         ; which includes all interface dev
 - libppl5-doc

Is 5 correct?  With the CVS head installed, this:

   objdump -p /usr/local/lib/libppl.so | grep SONAME

returns:

  SONAME      libppl.so.5

>> I have looked around, but was not satisfied with what I found.
>> You can consider me the RPM expert: it is not completely accurate
>> but it is good enough for our purposes.
>>
>> Matthew, can you elaborate things further?  Have a look at ppl.spec.in
>> that lists all the files that are installed by the RPM packages and
>> see how to map them into the Debian mechanism.

At a first glance it looks like the mapping could be straightforward.

> The only thing I found was "epm" - see

This might be useful.  The Debian README notes the lack of garauntee
that packages will conform to the policy.

> http://www.samag.com/documents/s=8964/sam0312h/0312h.htm
>
> - otherwise I suggest writing an awk-script that does the job
>   automatically!?

Instead of generating one from the other, both could have the common
information inserted.  So some sort of preprocessor could insert text
into each configuration.

The configurations are pretty small though, so it might just be easier
to edit both as they change.