Re: [DebianGIS] qgis removal
Hamish wrote:
> > I think we can re-upload the existing 0.9.1 package to experimental
> > for folks who really need it or want to help test.
Francesco:
> You think bad, it would be rejected soon by ftp-masters.
> Package needs to be lintian clean before any re-submission in the
> archive as experimental or in main.
I had always thought that experimental was a place to refine a package
under development which was not yet ready for the main archive, and so
requirements there were not as strict. But if not, ok then, it just seems
to me a bit counter-to-purpose to keep exp at that same high standard.
> Currently a couple of people from gfoss-it volunteered for cleaning
> the main issues.
...
> nicco also proposed himself for help.
hey, that's really great news!
> Another aspect is that Qgis has _periodically_ issues with g++ 4.3
> and that is not more acceptable. Package needs to be checked
> against gcc 4.3 every time before uploading. Apparently it seems
> upstream has not used 4.3 at the time of 0.9.1 and before
> and that causes some problems. I don't know what they are doing
> for 0.9.2.
as noted in the bug report, gcc 4.3 support has been fixed upstream for
0.9.2. http://trac.osgeo.org/qgis/changeset/8257
unidiff:
http://trac.osgeo.org/qgis/changeset/8257?format=diff&new=8257
probably that patch set could be applied by us to 0.9.1?
> IMHO qgis libraries need to be dropped and almost for sure moved
> into a private area. I think Qgis is quite far from having something
> people could consider as a stable API for third parties, so
> it is pointless having a libqgis1 and libqgis1-dev package.
> That would solve all soname issues periodically introduced into Qgis
> because they would be considered _private_.
also, I would be surprised to hear if anyone was using them separately.
Hamish
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Reply to: