Re: Auxiliary Flash Package for Java Package
Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> writes:
hi Paul,
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:53 AM, Felix Natter wrote:
>
>> Freeplane (a package in pkg-java) uses a swf file for browsing exported
>> mindmaps. Now I need to distribute the source (see #736106), so I plan
>> to put it in a separate package "freeplane-flash-browser".
>
> Personally I would just delete the SWF file from the source package
> and be done with it. I think Debian should encourage our upstreams to
> drop the Flash platform and replace their use of it with standard web
> stuff (HTML5, CSS, JS), at least that has some chance of having
> DFSG-free client support.
That's a good point. I will ask how important flash export is for
upstream and then maybe include it in 1.3.x.
>
>> - is it ok to install the swf file here:
>> /usr/share/freeplane-flash-browser/visorFreeplane.swf
>> and then add a symlink
>> /usr/share/freeplane/resources/flash/visorFreeplane.swf ->
>> /usr/share/freeplane-flash-browser/visorFreeplane.swf
>> in the Freeplane package so that the resource can be found?
>
> That should be fine as long as the path doesn't change.
>
>> - can I maintain the package in pkg-java? If not, where shall I put it?
>
> Best ask that on the debian-java list. If they don't accept you could
> maintain it on your own and if you want a git repo, use collab-maint.
Ok.
>> - There are no upstream releases of freeplane-flash-browser, it is
>> maintained in a git repo (along with some other programs):
>> https://github.com/freeplane/misc/tree/master/flash-browser
>>
>> Is it ok to use a shell script that extracts the flash-browser/source
>> directory (from git clone output) and creates an upstream tarball from
>> it? Can I make up a version number?
>
> Yes. If other parts of the same repository are useful you might want
> to create a freeplane-misc source package building multiple binary
> packages. Normally the version number should be based on the output of
> `git describe`. I note there is actually one date-based tag available
> but perhaps you should ask upstream to give it a proper version
> number. So maybe version it like 0~20131212 (where the date is the
> date of the latest commit when you create the tarball).
>
> https://github.com/freeplane/misc/tags
Thanks for the explanation :-)
>> - #736106 is an RC bug. Is it ok to keep freeplane 1.2.23-2 as is, and
>> fix it in the coming 1.3.x version (<< November, probably in 1-2
>> months)?
>
> I expect the release team will automatically remove freeplane from
> testing before then, which might not be desirable. I would suggest
> repacking it now to remove the SWF and worry about the rest later.
I guess it is ok to simply do the repacking/reimporting with "gbp
import-orig --filter ..."?
What would the version number be: 1.2.23+dfsg1-1 or 1.2.23+dfsg1-3
(current version number is 1.2.23-2)?
I guess 1.2.23+dfsg1-1 is ok since:
dpkg --compare-versions 1.2.23-2 lt 1.2.23+dfsg1-1 && echo yep
succeeds?
Thanks and Best Regards,
--
Felix Natter
Reply to: