Re: [swarm-hackers] swarm 2.3.0 release

[Scott Christley]

On Apr 15, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:

> I'm working with the packaging for Debian/Ubuntu that was created by  
> one
> of the Swarm users last year (Masayuki Hatta,
> http://www.mhatta.org/debian/swarm).  He's pretty gung-ho about
> complying with the Debian packaging guidelines, which,for one thing,
> require we call the package "libswarm" and not just "swarm" and also  
> we
> can't have a directory /usr/etc/swarm, we have to have /etc/swarm. He
> calls the package "libswarm0" and I don't know exactly why.

I believe the "0" is their simple version mechanism, so that they can  
maintain older and newer version of libraries.  So when Swarm releases  
a major upgrade, they can name the new package "libswarm1".   
Essentially if done properly, it would avoid the blt mess.

So I notice he has packaged it up but Swarm has not made it in as an  
official package into Debian yet.


> Anyway, are "we" Swarm people objecting against re-positioning files  
> to
> match the dictates of the distributions?

I don't think we really have much of a choice, but it shouldn't be  
much of a burden, Swarm really isn't much different than your average  
shared library.

/etc should really be reserved for system level configuration files, I  
think the stuff that Swarm has would be better in /usr/share/swarm


>  Are "we" objecting to calling
> this libswarm?

"I" don't have a problem with it.  That's how debian wants to do it,  
fine, it really doesn't affect us "upstream" folks.  So long as  
somebody can search for "swarm" and find our stuff, then I'm happy.   
Though it does make me wonder, will our examples apps be called  
libswarm-apps or swarm-apps?

Scott