Re: Bug#777043: Shark / libshark packaging status
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 12:22:19PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi,
>
> from my outsiders perspective I would assume that if you checked whether
> Goswins work contains something that might be relevant for the packaging
> and is not yet in your repository and upload as team upload in Debian
> Science things should be fine. I'd recommend to drop a note in the
> repository inside Debian Med about the new location.
>
> Surely Goswin as owner of the ITP has a last word but from the Debian
> Med teams point of view any progress that leads to an upload of the
> package is welcome.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Andreas.
>
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 09:32:56AM +0000, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I recently pushed a candidate source package for Shark [1] to the d-science
> > package repositories [2]. After more careful reading of the different ITP /
> > RFP bugs filed for Shark [3][4], I just realized that someone had already
> > started working on it a while back (Goswin).
> >
> > Please correct if I am wrong but it seems that no upload to the main archive
> > has been done so far for Shark. And rightfully so, since there are some
> > licensing issues in the distributed files (bug filed upstream) and quite a
> > bit of patching had to be done to fix the build system (PR sent upstream).
> > So as of today, I would advise against sponsoring an upload for it just yet,
> > although the packaging is ready (lintian-free, upstream metdata,
> > autopkgtest...).
> >
> > I don't know how you guys want to handle the duplication, but I wanted to
> > confirm that I am happy to join force with Goswin should he want to
> > co-maintain this package with me.
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/Shark-ML/Shark
> > [2] https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/debian-science/packages/shark.git
> > [3] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=595485
> > [4] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=777043
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Ghislain
Go ahead and work on. I packaged this as it was a dependency for
something one of our customers wanted but interest seems to have been
reduced since then. So I'm happy passing this on to someone else.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: