Re: Status of InVesalius packaging (Was: Status of SIGAR (Was: InVesalius packaging))
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Andreas Tille <tille@debian.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 11:45:38AM -0300, Thiago Franco Moraes wrote:
>> Ah, that was my fault. I was only trying to package the java binding,
>> only tests. I just forget to put ant in dependencies.
>
> OK.
>
>> >> - changelog doesn't list ITP bug number
>> >
>> > You should file a bug report against the virtual WNPP package - just
>> > tell me if this hint is not enough and you need more detailed
>> > information.
>>
>> I filled a bug report here
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=575873
>
> So you need to close the bug in the changelog - that's all.
>
>> > So why not changing to libs?
>>
>> Michael did that.
>
> Fine.
>
>> >> - I saw that you build a shared lib of libsigar -- did you talk to
>> >> upstream about SO version management yet?
>> >
>> > That's a more interesting question. So did anybody talked to upstream?
>>
>> About that no. And it something I don't have any knowledgment. I need
>> some help here.
>
> OK, this will be left to do.
>
>> >> - debian.copyright is still a template
>> >
>> > Do you need help to fill in the text into this template? If yes just
>> > let us know.
>>
>> Yes, I need some help. Here
>> http://forums.hyperic.com/jiveforums/thread.jspa?threadID=9833 I asked
>> the sigar developers about copyright.
>
> IMHO regarding copyright this is quite simple: Just look into the
> COPYRIGHT file provided inside the upstream tarball and you know what
> license they have. But this forum thread obviosely discusses also the
> SO version issue (without a reliable outcome anyway).
>
>> > I have no idea whether this binding is actually needed for some purpose.
>> > If not we might ignore this for the moment. Otherwise it would be
>> > interesting to know exactly what the exact problem was what you stopped
>> > you.
>>
>> I don't have any experience with java.
>
> Me neighter - but in case it would be needed for InVesalius we should
> consult Debian Java team. Could you please confirm whether Invesalius
> needs the Java binding or not?
No, only python binding is necessary.
>> I don't know what files are
>> necessaries and how to test if the java sigar bindings is working.
>
>> > Is there any reason not to use
>> >
>> > git.debian.org/git/debian-med/sigar
>>
>> Because sigar is using github.
>
> That's NO reason at all. We are developing the packaging directory
> debian/ which can be perfectly separated from the original source code.
> Our SVN workflow does only store this in SVN (see Debian Med policy[1] -
> you might like to store this document under your pillow ;-) ). The Git
> addicts keep a copy of the source code as pristine-tar import in the
> repository (for reasons I did not fully understood but that should be
> discussed somewhere else and its probably me who has to learn some
> bits about Git - probably it is easier to create patches).
>
> However, what we are changing is the debian/ dir plus patches we are
> forewarding upstream. It makes perfectly sense to have this stuff all
> together in git.debian.org/debian-med and submit the patches to the
> official upstream repository (but NOT the debian/ dir which does not
> belong to the upstream source).
>
> I now cloned the git repository from github and realised that there
> is no debian/ dir which in turn I have found via
I'm a novice in git. I think you have to change to debian branch.
> dget http://dl.dropbox.com/u/817671/packages/sigar_1.7.0%7Esvn5287-1.dsc
>
> Could anybody of you please make a proper clone of the current state
> *including* the latest version of debian/ in git.debian.org? I'm
> also fine with just keeping the debian/ dir simply in SVN because
> it seems not to be under Git control anyway.
>
> When inspecting all this stuff I also realised that there is one stable
> release of SIGAR which has version 1.6.4 and version 1.7 was (long = one
> year ago) promised to be released. I'd be in favour of packaging a
> stable release - provided that this fits the requirements of our final
> target InVesalius. Could you please comment whether InVesalius would
> build with SIGAR 1.6.4? (Sorry if this was discussed previousely.)
I wasn't able to compile python binding in SIGAR 1.6.4.
> Kind regards
>
> Andreas.
>
>
> [1] http://debian-med.alioth.debian.org/docs/policy.html
>
> --
> http://fam-tille.de
>
>
Reply to: