[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [swarm-hackers] swarm 2.3.0 release

From: Scott Christley
Subject: Re: [swarm-hackers] swarm 2.3.0 release
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:41:53 -0700

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?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]