Re: Status of InVesalius packaging (Was: Status of SIGAR (Was: InVesalius packaging))
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 11:45:38AM -0300, Thiago Franco Moraes wrote:
> Ah, that was my fault. I was only trying to package the java binding,
> only tests. I just forget to put ant in dependencies.
OK.
> >> - changelog doesn't list ITP bug number
> >
> > You should file a bug report against the virtual WNPP package - just
> > tell me if this hint is not enough and you need more detailed
> > information.
>
> I filled a bug report here
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=575873
So you need to close the bug in the changelog - that's all.
> > So why not changing to libs?
>
> Michael did that.
Fine.
> >> - I saw that you build a shared lib of libsigar -- did you talk to
> >> upstream about SO version management yet?
> >
> > That's a more interesting question. So did anybody talked to upstream?
>
> About that no. And it something I don't have any knowledgment. I need
> some help here.
OK, this will be left to do.
> >> - debian.copyright is still a template
> >
> > Do you need help to fill in the text into this template? If yes just
> > let us know.
>
> Yes, I need some help. Here
> http://forums.hyperic.com/jiveforums/thread.jspa?threadID=9833 I asked
> the sigar developers about copyright.
IMHO regarding copyright this is quite simple: Just look into the
COPYRIGHT file provided inside the upstream tarball and you know what
license they have. But this forum thread obviosely discusses also the
SO version issue (without a reliable outcome anyway).
> > I have no idea whether this binding is actually needed for some purpose.
> > If not we might ignore this for the moment. Otherwise it would be
> > interesting to know exactly what the exact problem was what you stopped
> > you.
>
> I don't have any experience with java.
Me neighter - but in case it would be needed for InVesalius we should
consult Debian Java team. Could you please confirm whether Invesalius
needs the Java binding or not?
> I don't know what files are
> necessaries and how to test if the java sigar bindings is working.
> > Is there any reason not to use
> >
> > git.debian.org/git/debian-med/sigar
>
> Because sigar is using github.
That's NO reason at all. We are developing the packaging directory
debian/ which can be perfectly separated from the original source code.
Our SVN workflow does only store this in SVN (see Debian Med policy[1] -
you might like to store this document under your pillow ;-) ). The Git
addicts keep a copy of the source code as pristine-tar import in the
repository (for reasons I did not fully understood but that should be
discussed somewhere else and its probably me who has to learn some
bits about Git - probably it is easier to create patches).
However, what we are changing is the debian/ dir plus patches we are
forewarding upstream. It makes perfectly sense to have this stuff all
together in git.debian.org/debian-med and submit the patches to the
official upstream repository (but NOT the debian/ dir which does not
belong to the upstream source).
I now cloned the git repository from github and realised that there
is no debian/ dir which in turn I have found via
dget http://dl.dropbox.com/u/817671/packages/sigar_1.7.0%7Esvn5287-1.dsc
Could anybody of you please make a proper clone of the current state
*including* the latest version of debian/ in git.debian.org? I'm
also fine with just keeping the debian/ dir simply in SVN because
it seems not to be under Git control anyway.
When inspecting all this stuff I also realised that there is one stable
release of SIGAR which has version 1.6.4 and version 1.7 was (long = one
year ago) promised to be released. I'd be in favour of packaging a
stable release - provided that this fits the requirements of our final
target InVesalius. Could you please comment whether InVesalius would
build with SIGAR 1.6.4? (Sorry if this was discussed previousely.)
Kind regards
Andreas.
[1] http://debian-med.alioth.debian.org/docs/policy.html
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: