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

Re: [DebianGIS] osgearth and tinyows

Hi Aron,

Thanks for your review!

Am Donnerstag, 7. Juli 2011, 19.38:43 schrieb Aron Xu:
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 00:52, Paolo Cavallini <cavallini@faunalia.it> wrote:
> > Il 07/07/2011 18:48, Aron Xu ha scritto:
> >> If you are just asking for a sponsor, please make the package first
> >> and we'll try to help you on getting it into Debian. If not, please
> >> give us more information (especially some essential links) so that
> >> interested party can jump into this thing.
> > 
> > The packege should be ready, e.g.
> > http://web.archiveorange.com/archive/v/X3yUUpFGJ9fQJ0PTI9eV
> Thanks. Yes, there is:
> http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-grass/osgearth.git
> CC'ing Pirmin to follow this thread.
> I have done a quick check of this package, just go through some files
> in debian/ but not deeply dig into it:
> 1. This package needs an ITP.

Paolo: Could you help me with the organisational paperwork?

> 2. In debian/control:
> a) Do you mind set "Debian GIS Project
> <pkg-grass-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org>" to Maintainer or Uploaders?
> It will help the team to monitor the package, and of course, the
> package is already hosted in pkg-grass's git repository.


> b) There is a binary package named "libosgearth1", so why there isn't
> a "libosgearth-dev" or "libosgearth1-dev'? I have seen there is a
> "osgearth-dev', why do you name it like this / can you mind to change
> the name per debian-policy?

osgearth is closely related with openscenegraph (OSG). Therefore some 
packaging decisions are following the openscenegraph packages. OSG has: 


The last package also includes numerous example binaries. I decided to move 
the pure examples to the dev package. That's the reason for the "mixed" name.
I'm fine with libosgearth-dev as well.

> c) The source package's section is "science", but we'd better to
> explicitly state that libraries are in section "libs", and -dev
> packages are in section "libdevel", as per policy.


> d) Do you mind to improve your long descriptions, to tell users a bit
> more about the packages? It's too short now.

Paolo? See also www.osgearth.org and 

> c) Latest standard-version is 3.9.2 now.


> 3. Please specify your source package format. I recommend to use "3.0
> (quilt)". Then you should remove your README.source.

ok, thanks for the recommendation.

> 4.While looking at debian/libosgearth1.install, it shows this package
> has some plugins to be installed. Why not split those plugins into
> another package? Generally I don't think put them into library is a
> good idea, but if you think it's required to be there, I'll be willing
> to hear your explanation.

The reason is that _all_ drivers are distributed as plugin. So libosgearth1 
dependes on them anyway. I guess libopenscenegraph65 includes all plugins for 
the same reason.

> 5. Looking at debian/osgearth-dev.install, the package installs some
> binaries into /usr/bin, so I guess this is your excuse about why the
> -dev package is not named libosgearth-dev. But please provide the
> lib*-dev package, and split these binaries into another package, and
> declare correct dependencies in all binary packages that need them.

There are good reasion to split osgearth into a dozen packages. I propose to 
remove the example binaries from the (lib)osgearth-dev package then.


Pirmin Kalberer
Sourcepole  -  Linux & Open Source Solutions

Reply to: