Re: Status of osrm
Hi Jochen,
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:06:36AM +0200, Jochen Topf wrote:
> I had a quick look and also talked to Dennis, the upstream author. A few
> issues came up:
> * The current release is 0.4.2b, not 0.4.2.
I usually ignore "letter appended version numbers" except I know upstream
intention what it means. "B" sounds like beta and so I did not included
this into the d/watch file.
> The version 0.4.3 is expected
> next week, so maybe we should shoot for that one.
Sounds very reasonable. Please tell me whether any 'abcd...' appendixes
should be considered in the d/watch file (or fix the watch file yourself
;-))
> * The two patches you added are unclear to me/Dennis. Maybe we can figure
> out what needs to change in upstream (if anything).
The first patch is just an adaption of Christopher's (the original
packagers patch) who might lost interest / track in packaging - at least
he never responded on my answer to his RFS bug. The other patch was
injected by myself yesterday since the build process failed somehow
without this hack. Feel free to drop both packages and test the result.
I'm no cmake expert and would love if we could do without any patch!
> * Why did you split into two packages osrm and osrm-tools?
This was *not* my choice. I just took over Christopher's packaging and
updated it to Debian GIS policy. I'm perfectly fine if you turn the
package as you like it to be. I can't repeat enough that I just want to
help kickstarting what you (in terms of the users of this package) will
consider as handy. I have no personal interest in it and will accept
any (policy compliant) change to the packaging in Git. So feel free to
take over.
> * Is there a reason why the one-line Description:s in control are all
> lower-case?
Because it fits English orthography? What do you mean?
> Did I understand this correctly, that you are just helping out here and not
> planning to release the package until somebody who actually uses the software
> promises to maintain it? I don't use the software either, just know the author,
> so I am of limited help here.
Thanks for your moderation attempt. And yes, I just wanted to help to
finalise what has started promising. If the upstream author himself
feels capable (with my or this lists help!) to keep this package alive
that would be a reason enough for me to sponsor this package.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: