Re: deadline coming soon for OpenCPN
Hi Antoine,
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 09:35:39AM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> > I admit the request for sponsoring was sooooo long ago that I do not
> > remember and I see no value to think about aged code. I'd perfectly
> > agree if the current source for 3.2.2 would be used for packaging. I'd
> > recommend to use Files-Excluded if any files need to be stripped from
> > this source tarball (but I did not inspected it regarding this issue).
>
> I'm not familiar with this mechanism - but it certainly looks
> interesting!
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/UscanEnhancements
>
> Am I correct in understanding this would only simplify the
> get-orig-source target, not replace it?
Yes. I typically use in d/rules
get-orig-source:
uscan --verbose --force-download --repack --comress xz
and list all files (with wildcards) in d/copyright under
Files-Excluded
This saves you the work of creating all times the same code just to
remove files from upstream source tarball.
> > another look. Since you obviously had a more recent look and you do
> > not need a sponsor I'd trust your insight if you say it is OK.
>
> I don't think it's okay - it doesn't even build at that stage,
> especially because we strip so much off the tarball.
I'd only strip files which are considered non-free (and perhaps some
files that might be only useful at non-Linux/non-BSD systems).
> > I personally did not. The only thing I could say that it always heats
> > my temper a bit if I learn about another instance of failed
> > communication between people working on free GIS software. I wonder
> > why we are not able to catch all those people into our common project
> > and do not reinvent the wheel over and over. :-(
>
> The PPA is from upstream, and is fairly minimal: it doesn't split the
> code in multiple packages (though I'm not sure why *we* do that in the
> first place) and doesn't attempt to deduplicate code.
I do not see any reason why upstream should not commit packaging code to
git.debian.org and we check and upload this code. This is what we
established for several programs in the Debian Med team.
> > to Git or create a new Git repository which is compliant to Debian GIS
> > policy[1] (fetch the tarball via uscan and use
> > git import-orig --pristine-tar
> > to inject the source.
>
> Ugh.. pristine-tar... Why do we need this if we're going to strip out
> half the tarball anyways?
I'm talking about the resulting tarball you get with the uscan above.
Specifically when using stripped (non-original with same MD5SUM as you
can download) it makes sense that all packagers can fetch easily a
(byte) identical source tarball which is only possible with
pristine-tar. I see no need to inject the downloadable tarball if
things wil lbe removed anyway.
> > Designe the debian/ dir according to your insight
> > as a DD (may be ask for review here - but I'm no GIS expert and thus I
> > can only check packaging details).
>
> Well, I'm not sure I'll have much more time to fight for this one - it's
> a huge mess, that upstream, in terms of licensing and binary data...
:-(
> > Please also get the person responsible fpr the PPA involved and invite
> > him to join the project offering him cooperation to work on this
> > repository. This should support his goal to make OpenCPN available in
> > Ubuntu way better than some random PPA.
>
> It's not exactly a random PPA: it's upstream running their own official
> PPA...
OK - I think an official Debian package where upstream is involved in
the packaging makes more sense anyway.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: