Re: RFS: jitsi/1.1.4365-1 [ITP]
Hi,
the package have been updated, removed any binaries or class files from it.
Thanks
Damian
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Damian Minkov <damencho@jitsi.org> wrote:
> Hi Tony,
>
> thanks for the quick comments on our package, we have some questions:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 7:14 AM, tony mancill <tmancill@debian.org> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> Oh OK. They must have slipped in accidentally. We'll remove them in the next
> submission
>
>>
>>
>> b) exclude copies source libraries that are already packaged for Debian
>> - For example, libavcodec
>
>
> We had a quick test with libav and we seemed to be missing some headers (as
> opposed to when using ffmpeg 1.0). We can give it another try and look some
> more. I am wondering however if we could somehow CC the corresponding
> maintainers and maybe have some feedback from them as well.
>
>>
>>
>> c) exclude copies of distinct libraries that should be packaged
>> separately.
>> - For example, ice4j (even though you're also upstream for that), jsip
>
>
> We completely understand the advantages of committing things into separate
> packages. The thing is that we started work on the Jitsi source deb package
> around the beginning of August and it has taken us that long to get here. We
> were hence hoping that we could work on getting the first version in its
> current form. We were planning on ultimately spinning off libs such as ice4j
> and libjitsi but given that no other projects are currently depending on
> them we were hoping that it could wait.
>
> Is this unreasonable?
>
> Thanks
> Damian
>
>>
>>
>> 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
>> packages.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> tony
>>
>>
>> [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-embeddedfiles
>>
>>
>
Reply to: