Hi again, El dg 15 de 05 de 2011 a les 15:49 +0300, en/na George Danchev va escriure: > On Sunday 15 May 2011 14:48:07 Eric Lavarde wrote: > > Hello Monica, > > Hi, > > > interesting that you're now working on bt747: I'm also using this > > program to download my GPS tracks and flag my photos, wanted as well to > > package it, and basically silently gave up as I looked into it :-P > > I'd actually favor your decision, instead :-) > > > Anyway I'm happy that someone has more courage and/or time to do it! I doubt I have more courage or time than you, I'm only trying to do it :-) But as you saw, it's not an easy package. Any help is welcome! (In fact, you're already helping answering all my quesions! Further below you have more...) > > On 15/05/11 13:22, Mònica Ramírez Arceda wrote: > > > El dg 15 de 05 de 2011 a les 19:08 +0800, en/na Paul Wise va escriure: > > >> Yep, package any embedded code copies separately. > > >> > > >> For modified code copies, try to get the changes into their proper > > >> upstream or the Debian package if it exists. > > > > > > Ok, I'll try it, altough this library doesn't exist in Debian, for now. > > > > > > But I don't understand what I have to do when I have these changes :-( > > > > To be honest, I had the same problem as you with Freeplane and JOrtho, > > and I decided to keep JOrtho as part of the freeplane package, under the > > binary name libjortho-freeplane-java. > > The reasons were: > > - JOrtho was not in Debian either > > - JOrtho seemed not very active (dead?). > > - the changes done by the Freeplane developer on JOrtho were already > > raised to the JOrtho team but still not included though compatible. > > - by having a separate binary package, I can change the dependencies if > > required at some point in time, so it doesn't close any future option. > > Well, in my opinion, these are no good reasons to fold even more nearly > unmaintained pieces of code (I admit, I haven't looked at JOrtho) inside > source packages targeted to the Debian archive. This would open the door for > more burden possibly to be placed on Release Team, Security Team, QA team, > possible NMUers, etc shoulders. I believe packages should enter Debian archive > whenever 'they are ready' to meet a certain threshold, at least (working with > upstream upfront until the issues are resolved is the way to go), instead of > getting rot inside the unstable or testing suites or maintained via nmus > because the project as a whole approaches a release. Cleaning up or reducing > the amount of embedding copies is a daunting task. Ok. So I understand the best way to do it would be packaging this modified library in a separated package. This library is based on swingx-ws (and as far as I see it is an active project). Altough swingx-ws is not in Debian, I suppose I should package the modified libray with a name like libbt747-swingx-ws-java. Is it right? If you think I should throw in the towel, you can tell me sincerely ;-) but I would like to give this package a chance (I contacted with upstream and he is very responsive). Thanks for all your answers!!! Mònica
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part