Re: Status of InVesalius packaging (Was: Status of SIGAR (Was: InVesalius packaging))
Ah, I've done some modifications in the copyright and changelog
https://github.com/tfmoraes/sigar/tree/debian/debian
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Thiago Franco Moraes
<tfmoraes@cti.gov.br> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Andreas Tille <tille@debian.org> wrote:
>> 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?
>
> No, only python binding is necessary.
>
>>> 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
>
> I'm a novice in git. I think you have to change to debian branch.
>
>> 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.)
>
> I wasn't able to compile python binding in SIGAR 1.6.4.
>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Andreas.
>>
>>
>> [1] http://debian-med.alioth.debian.org/docs/policy.html
>>
>> --
>> http://fam-tille.de
>>
>>
>
Reply to: