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

Re: RFS: jitsi/1.1.4365-1 [ITP]

On 12/10/2012 05:13 AM, Damian Minkov wrote:

>   We are looking for a sponsor for our package "jitsi"
>  * Package name    : jitsi
>    Version         : 1.1.4365-1
>    Upstream Author : Jitsi Community <dev@jitsi.java.net <mailto:dev@jitsi.java.net>>
>  * URL             : https://jitsi.org/
>  * License         : LGPL v2
>    Section         : net

>   http://mentors.debian.net/package/jitsi
>   dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/j/jitsi/jitsi_1.1.4365-1.dsc

Hello Damian,

I'm glad to see a package of jitsi.  I've taken a look at the packaging
on mentors.d.o and I think there is some additional work to do before
the package can be included in Debian.

The first thing I would suggest is that the orig.tar.gz be repacked to:

a) not include binary JARs or .class files
 - For example, there are 3 separate copies of junit alone.

b) exclude copies source libraries that are already packaged for Debian
 - For example, libavcodec

c) exclude copies of distinct libraries that should be packaged separately.
 - For example, ice4j (even though you're also upstream for that), jsip

I recognize that these may represent significant effort - particularly
(b) and (c) - given that the library versions in the source tarball
appear to be newer than the versions in Debian and that the libraries in
(c) will each become a separate package.

The reason behind (b) and (c) is the section Debian Policy concerning
"convenience copies of code" [1].  The reason for (a) is that the binary
artifacts needlessly bloat the archive.

This is the right list to help with (c), and (b) as possible for Java


[1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-embeddedfiles

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: