Re: OSCAR 10.12 has been packaged
- To: Peter Hutten-Czapski <phc@SRPC.ca>
- Cc: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: OSCAR 10.12 has been packaged
- From: Andreas Tille <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 08:42:34 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20120801064234.GA23574@an3as.eu>
- In-reply-to: <CAHNNH=GZwpRgp3V7-KG-ONcQOC9J8XfwVa65CRAf7vNLqrOZjA@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CAHNNH=H0Vv9MP9zA6oGtb1D_DeKyn_twnVj3kL_Ab6_PLP-xMg@mail.gmail.com> <20120729124156.GB3264@hermes.hilbert.loc> <1758982.xiST9oWa46@linux.fritz.box> <CAHNNH=FBQpEV3wMfMVJL77Z7RKBJKVuUOkM2Y5BSjor4k_email@example.com> <20120730075549.GB27820@an3as.eu> <CAHNNH=H3Z7kG5xsQP2gmvEbOrzpeQFnj8h4TLZtaPgqPKNp6iA@mail.gmail.com> <20120730185520.GA9854@an3as.eu> <CAHNNH=HTOFyD5kiLXK3m3_dbjZAwJFzRqA37Bp7rv6dAEtccuQ@mail.gmail.com> <20120731072517.GB26626@an3as.eu> <CAHNNH=GZwpRgp3V7-KG-ONcQOC9J8XfwVa65CRAf7vNLqrOZjA@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 12:12:12PM -0400, Peter Hutten-Czapski wrote:
> The relevant numbers
> The latest release of Oscar is labelled 12
> its build 37 of the stable version of the branch
> and version 1.6 of the installation scripts
> I have tarred up the source that matches the binary and its at
I had a look into this and noticed that the tarball is something like
an archive of two separate Git repositories
For me this assembly of two different repositories just wrapped into one
tar file does not look like what I would call a *release* tarball.
Usually releases fo not contain any metadata from a VCS but rather
contain the pure source. Moreover, the fact that the code and docs are
maintained in two separate repositories might give a hint that it makes
perfectly sense to also do tow different source and binary Debian
packages (for sure with proper Dependency relations set).
I wonder whether the Oscar project could do some versioned source
release containing the pure content of oscar_source/oscar without the
metainformation in oscar_source/oscar/.git and another versioned release
of the files in oscar_source/oscar_documents/ (also without .git) or if
both parts would be very closely connected also in one tarball but just
as a release and not a simple dump of a Git repository clone.
I also had a quick look into the binary JAR file issue and found 69
files that will need closer inspection. IMHO for the moment it is to
hard to get rid of all these in one rush and so we probably need to go
to the non-free section of Debian. In any case we need to make sure
that we assemble the licenses of these JAR files - some 'UNKNOWN'
strings in the file names are looking suspicious.