xmladad and templates_parser
Hello. I would like some advices about...
Xmlada produces 5 libraries: xmlada_$module for $module in dom,
input_sources, unicode, sax and schema. This makes sense, because SAX
users may not want to [load in memory|statically embed] the DOM part,
or may want to use the unicode module only.
Former Debian packages were skipping the unconfigurable upstream
build system, and generating one monolithic library.
I see 3 directions:
1 Go on this way. Diverging has many costs, and is not motivated
anymore because the upstream build system has improved a lot.
2 Generate 3*5 binary packages (lib, -dev and -dbg) instead of 3*1,
plus a libxmlada-dev compatibility package providing xmlada-config
and xmlada.gpr. Normal users would not be affected.
3 Generate 3 binary packages containing five libraries. Many Debian
packages do that (libncurses-dev for example), but this would break
the Debian Ada policy.
I vote in favor of 2, as implemented in the debian/split.diff file in
latest revision of the org.debian.libxmlada monotone branch.
Aws and templates-parser upstream development histories are now
published in a public web-browsable git repository. Template-parser is
a git submodule of aws, meaning that its repository may be cloned
separately, but by default contains tricks in .git/ telling that it is
intended as a subdirectory of the aws git repository. Releases are
tagged (for example, it seems that the 11.8.0 release is tagged 11.8
(not 11.8.0)).
I hardly see the benefit anymore of duplicating the whole history in a
monotone database, and suggest that we generate .orig tarballs from
that repository.
In case this suggestion is rejected, I would like someone used to
tailor to propagate the changes until 11.8.0 to the monotone database.
both, and probably other adacore packages
Every source header now mentions GPL-3+ with GCC runtime
exception. Upstream insists on sources available in libre.adacore.com
or public git repositories being relicensed under the pure GPL. I
believe that it does not make any practical difference anymore for
Debian.
If so, we should stop using a separate branch (say,
com.adacore.xmlada.debian) removing the GNAT runtime exception from
the branch tracking upstream revisions (say, com.adacore.xmlada).
Reply to: