Re: OpenStreetMap Software
On 06/24/2015 09:34 AM, Jochen Topf wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:57:47PM +0200, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>> On 03/16/2015 08:08 PM, Jochen Topf wrote:
>>> On Mo, Mär 16, 2015 at 07:25:25 +0100, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>>>> On 03/16/2015 05:38 PM, Jochen Topf wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 04:38:59PM +0100, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>>>>>> During this process I noticed that mapolution in osmium-contrib doesn't
>>>>>> list copyright and license information. I assume this is also
>>>>>> public-domain like the rest, but this is not explicitly listed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is also no overall license for the combined work including CMake &
>>>>>> docs mostly.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have updated the osmium-contrib repository to show that everything is in
>>>>> the Public Domain.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for this change.
>>>>
>>>> Do you still doubt the usefulness of packaging osmium-contrib?
>>>
>>> It is a bit of a grab bag of programs. Some of them might be useful on their
>>> own but mostly they are examples for libosmium use, not much use as they are
>>> but good as a starting point for somebodys own development efforts. Maybe I
>>> should put the stuff thats not usable on its own into the libosmium examples
>>> directory and only leave the stuff thats usable on its own.
>>>
>>>> I've not continued with this package because of that, besides getting
>>>> the required libosmium ready first.
>>>
>>> Lets leave osmium-contrib alone for the time being and concentrate on the
>>> other packages. Once they have settled, I'll have a look again.
>>
>> With the acceptance of libosmium [1] into the archive, I've also
>> uploaded the first revisions for osmium-tool [2], osmcoastline [3] &
>> pyosmium [4]. These will hit the NEW queue soon.
>>
>> Should we still skip further packaging of osmium-contrib?
>
> Yes. I don't really see the point of packaging this. This is really example code
> intended for people to change and build upon, not something that non-developers
> will install. And after I have seen how much hassle the Debian packaging is, I
> am even less inclined to go through that.
>
>> And what about node-osmium?
>
> Currently not really in a state I want to support. And most people will use the
> simpler 'npm install' anyway. No package needed.
OK, I've closed the ITP bugs for osmium-contrib & node-osmium. I'll
leave the partial packaging in git in case we change our mind in the future.
> I saw this: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=789756 . Can we
> mark this as a conflict? Or even better, mark the old packages as deprecated
> and remove them in a few months or so? This is code that has basically been
> dead for two years now. We have to give people some warning and maybe get
> node-osmium in after all so there is a viable replacement for osmjs, so that
> the new packages fully replace the old ones. Not sure I'll have the resources
> to do that.
I saw that too, and I've already fixed it by adding
Conflicts/Provides/Replaces on libosmium-dev to libosmium2-dev. This
will replace libosmium-dev with libosmium2-dev, see:
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-replaces
I'll leave the old osmium package in the archive until the new osmium
packages have passed the NEW queue at least. And once they've migrated
to testing I'll backport them for jessie.
osmjs has 14 voting users in popcon, so it has an actual userbase.
Dropping it without having a replacement may upset them, but I don't
feel strongly about this either way.
https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=osmium
Kind Regards,
Bas
--
GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1
Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1
Reply to: