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

Re: Fwd: Re: Why no Opera?

Hi debian-devel,

> The web of trust gave me Mr Johan Herland as the only member of strong set 
> and I took the freedom to place him on the CC line.

Johan forwarded you to me.  For reference, dpkg -s, or the package's
control file, would have told you:

Maintainer: Opera Packaging Team <packager@opera.com>

> Opera could offer an apt repository for the .deb

We already do :-)
Here's the line from my /etc/apt/sources.list:

deb http://deb.opera.com/opera/ testing non-free

There are two packages available (for each of several configurations):
opera is the shared-linkage version, opera-static is the
statically-linked version.  The former comes in two flavours; .5 for
sarge and .6 for etch onwards.  Things older than sarge are the reason
for the static version.  With any luck, Claudio (one of the other
parties to packager@opera.com) can add more detail on what's behind
that ...

> On Tuesday 28 August 2007 06:46:47 Bruce Sass wrote:
>> On Mon August 27 2007 05:33:05 pm Romain Beauxis wrote:
>> > Le Tuesday 28 August 2007 00:17:40 Bruce Sass, vous avez écrit :
>> > > On Mon August 27 2007 04:05:24 pm Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>> > > > And it's no way we will accept the statically linked version
>> > > > in Debian.

>> Of course, obviously---for software where there is a choice, but for
>> software which can not be built from source because it is closed or not
>> redistributable once modified (which seems to be the case with Opera),
>> putting a statically linked version into the archive sounds like the
>> correct solution.

I'm confused.  Pierre appears to be saying "static is bad", Bruce
"closed must be static".  We have both static and shared packages, so
you can take your pick, but which is the one the official Debian
repository wants ?

I should also note that the existing Opera packages have not been very
lintian-compliant.  The new 9.50 release (we recently released an
alpha) shall deploy my re-write of the scripts that do packaging: this
fixes many of the deficiencies you'll find in packages up to 9.23, but
I'd greatly appreciate guidance on how to improve what 9.50 does !

Thanks for mirroring our package,


Reply to: