[ITP] ploticus, libploticus, ploticus-common, ploticus-doc (revised)

[Charles Wilson]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 12:02:12PM -0400, Andrew Schulman wrote:

>>Maybe you're right.  I don't have much experience with library packages and so
>>overlooked this.  Do others agree?
> 
> 
> Yes.  static libraries belong in a -devel package.

I don't see *any* .h files in the packages.  A C library is pretty 
useless for development without them.  The following headers are in the 
source package:

ploticus-2.32/src/plg.h
ploticus-2.32/src/pl.h
ploticus-2.32/src/tdhkit.h
ploticus-2.32/src/gd13/gd.h
ploticus-2.32/src/gd16/gd.h
ploticus-2.32/src/gd16/gd_io.h
ploticus-2.32/src/gd_io.h
ploticus-2.32/src/gdfontg.h
ploticus-2.32/src/gdfontl.h
ploticus-2.32/src/gdfontmb.h
ploticus-2.32/src/gdfonts.h
ploticus-2.32/src/gdfontt.h
ploticus-2.32/src/x11shades.h
ploticus-2.32/src/special_chars.h
ploticus-2.32/pltestsuite/plconfig.spanish
ploticus-2.32/pltestsuite/data10h


However, I couldn't find any Linux ploticus packages that distribute 
these headers -- mainly because they ALSO do not distribute the static 
library, either. (Note that the "official" linux binary package on the 
ploticus homepage ALSO does not distribute the lib nor headers)

It seems that libploticus.a is simply a "convenience" library, intended 
to make building ploticus.exe (aka 'pl') easier.  It does not appear 
that the ploticus team really intended to furnish a publicly reusable API.

In that case, it might just be better to not distribute the library or 
the headers at all, but this decision would require further research. 
Maybe the original poster could contact the ploticus development team 
and ask their advice on packaging?

--
Chuck