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

Re: new software ready for inspection: situs



On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 15:31 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 03:20:47PM +0200, Mickaël Canévet wrote:
> > > 
> > >    src/   - this seems to contain the real source of situs
> > 
> > yep, and the only one Makefile
> > 
> > >    fftw/  - seems to be a convinience copy of fftw library - we
> > >             should make sure that for the package build the Debian
> > >             packaged library will be used
> > 
> > I patched the Makefile to build and link towards with Debian fftw.
> 
> Fine.
>  
> > >    bin/   - binary executables - something we do not really need
> > >             in the repository except if it is by chance contained
> > >             in the upstream tarball - but it would be better to advise
> > >             upstream not to include it
> > > 
> > 
> > It's included in the upstream tarball.
> 
> We might need to talk to the author anyway (see below).  I'm tempted to
> repack the upstream source in cause the author might insist in keeping
> these because carrying an extra 3MB of non-usable stuff does not make
> any sense.
>  
> > > After having visited the situs homepage and trying to download the
> > > source I ended up with some download page[3].  This seems to be the
> > > first hurdle to discuss with upstream.  I know that there might be
> > > reasons for them to control the number of downloads but this on one hand
> > > disables our tools to reasonably detect new version numbers on the other
> > > hand a packaging for Debian means that the source tarball will be
> > > available on a different place than theirs and we should at least
> > > explain this fact to them to be friendly (even if their license is GPL
> > > and would in principle enable us doing this).
> > 
> > I have a direct link on the page providing the download, but I suppose
> > the author does not want us to bypass his form page (even if the direct
> > link might be index by google and friends).
> 
> We need to tell the author that in case we upload the package to the
> Debian mirrors anybody can download the source from there so we do open
> a really large bypass for anybody.  And as I said - we really want to
> write a watch file to track new versions.  Perhaps we could argue that
> the author might get our popcon results for the package users as an
> replacement for his own statistics.
> 
> > > So what do you think about MoM to create a proper debian/ dir and
> > > build a real Debian package?
> > 
> > I just forgot to add the debian/ dir to my git repository, so it should
> > be OK now. But I may need MoM at some point, but maybe after the summer
> > when I'll be back from vacation and may have a few more time to follow
> > the recommendation of a mentor :-)
> 
> Fine.  You are always welcome as well as your colleagues.
>  
> Kind regards
> 
>      Andreas.
> 
> -- 
> http://fam-tille.de
> 
> 

Hi Andreas,

I'd like to know what are (if there are) the rules to contact the
upstream author to discuss about:
- default linkage towards embedded libfftw,
- presence of pre-compiled binaries and fftw sources in archives,
- lack of direct url to watch for new version

Should I write him in the name of the Debian Med Team, in my own name,
or should I let a senior member of the team do it ?

Thanks,
Mickaël

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: