Debian packaging, quick naming question

[Russ Allbery <rr...@stanford.edu>]

Hello folks,

First, I wanted to introduce myself and mention that I and Quanah
Gibson-Mount are currently working on packaging Shibboleth for Debian and
therefore are also packaging XML-Security-C as a prerequisite.  Quanah has
finished a first pass at the packaging and I'm currently working on a few
refinements.  I expect to upload packages to Debian unstable sometime in
the next couple of weeks.

If there are any questions or concerns over XML-Security-C being packaged
for Debian, please don't hesitate to let me know.

Second, and this is one of those things that doesn't really matter but I
promised to at least ask, there were a few Debian developers who responded
to my Intent to Package notification who were wondering why the package
was called XML-Security-C when it was written in C++.  Is there an
explanation I should give them on why it's not called XML-Security-C++ in
the tarball and other parts of the distribution?  This is purely
aesthetic, but since multiple people noticed it, it seemed worth at least
asking about.  (My guess is that part of the issue is that the library
name has been encoded in other applications that depend on it and isn't
worth changing.)

Apologies if this is a constant topic of discussion.  I checked through
the last year or so of the list archives and didn't see any obvious
threads, but I could well have missed it.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Re: Debian packaging, quick naming question

[Russ Allbery <rr...@stanford.edu>]

Berin Lautenbach <be...@wingsofhermes.org> writes:

> BTW - Am really glad someone has picked up the debian thing.  I had an
> ITP filed for a long time, but I never got around to actually doing the
> packaging.

Did the ITP get closed, or is there still one floating around that I need
to make sure I catch.

> But I do look after the Xalan package, and I know the main person who
> looks after Xerces, so if there are any dependency problems give me a
> hoy.

Will do.

Everything looks fairly good.  The one thing that I did run into, though,
is that currently the xml-security-c sets its SONAME to
libxml-security-c.so.12.0, not just libxml-security-c.so.12 as is
conventional.  This seems wrong to me -- usually the second digit is for
changes that don't affect the ABI, and looking at the configure script, it
seems to be coming from the patch level of the release, which shouldn't
result in ABI changes.

I'm planning on applying the following patch for Debian, but would
recommend that this change be made for all systems in the configure.ac.

Also, config.guess and config.sub are very old, too old to support some
Debian architectures.  Could you update them to the latest versions from
ftp.gnu.org before the next release?  It would save me a step in building
the package.

Thanks!

Index: xml-security-c/src/configure.ac
===================================================================
--- xml-security-c.orig/src/configure.ac	2006-05-24 16:22:50.000000000 -0700
+++ xml-security-c/src/configure.ac	2006-05-24 16:46:14.000000000 -0700
@@ -242,7 +242,7 @@ case "${host}" in
 						PLATFORM_OPTIONS=["${PLATFORM_OPTIONS} ${PIC} -DLINUX"]
 						CC1=["${CXX} ${CXXFLAGS} ${PLATFORM_OPTIONS}"]
 						CC4=["${CC} ${CXXFLAGS} ${PLATFORM_OPTIONS}"]
-						MAKE_SHARED=["${CXX} ${CXXFLAGS} -Wl,-soname,\$(LIBNAME) -DLINUX -shared ${PIC}"]
+						MAKE_SHARED=["${CXX} ${CXXFLAGS} -Wl,-soname,\$(LIBMAJORNAME) -DLINUX -shared ${PIC}"]
 						LINK=["${CXX} ${CXXFLAGS} -DLINUX -ldl ${PIC}"]
 						LINK_COMMAND_1=["(cd \$(LIB_DIR) ; rm -f \$(LIBMAJORNAME) ; \$(LN_S) \$(LIBNAME) \$(LIBMAJORNAME))"]
 						LINK_COMMAND_2=["(cd \$(LIB_DIR) ; rm -f \$(LIBSHORTNAME) ; \$(LN_S) \$(LIBNAME) \$(LIBSHORTNAME))"]


-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Re: Debian packaging, quick naming question

[Berin Lautenbach <be...@wingsofhermes.org>]

Scott Cantor wrote:
>>Second, and this is one of those things that doesn't really matter but I
>>promised to at least ask, there were a few Debian developers who responded
>>to my Intent to Package notification who were wondering why the package
>>was called XML-Security-C when it was written in C++.
> 
> 
> Just a guess on my part, but Xerces is called Xerces-C in various places,
> Xerces C++ in others. All the directories on the Apache site, cvs/svn, etc.
> use xerces-c or xerces/c/ as a designation. Just seems to be the approach
> for better or worse.

That's pretty much it.  And the name was already so long I didn't want
to add yet more onto the filename.

Just lazy I guess.

BTW - Am really  glad someone has picked up the debian thing.  I had an
ITP filed for a long time, but I never got around to actually doing the
packaging.  But I do look after the Xalan package, and I know the main
person who looks after Xerces, so if there are any dependency problems
give me a hoy.

Cheers,
	Berin

RE: Debian packaging, quick naming question

[Scott Cantor <ca...@osu.edu>]

> Second, and this is one of those things that doesn't really matter but I
> promised to at least ask, there were a few Debian developers who responded
> to my Intent to Package notification who were wondering why the package
> was called XML-Security-C when it was written in C++.

Just a guess on my part, but Xerces is called Xerces-C in various places,
Xerces C++ in others. All the directories on the Apache site, cvs/svn, etc.
use xerces-c or xerces/c/ as a designation. Just seems to be the approach
for better or worse.

-- Scott