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

Re: bt747: doubts on licenses and embedded libraries

Hi again,

El dg 15 de 05 de 2011 a les 15:49 +0300, en/na George Danchev va
> 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

> > 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

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!!!

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

Reply to: