Re: bt747: doubts on licenses and embedded libraries
On Sunday 15 May 2011 21:01:44 Mònica Ramírez Arceda wrote:
Hi,
> > > 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).
I'm not well prepared to comment on that particular set of packages (maybe the
Debian Java team would tell better), but:
* if swingx-ws is not in Debian yet, and your prospective packages depend on
it, package that first (as a separate source package).
* if libbt747-swingx-ws-java needs to be a modified library of $something, then
questions are: why are these modifications not tried to be pushed upstream in
the first place? In case of vanished or irresponsible upstream I guess you
should be prepared to effectively become an upstream for it. Package that as
well (separate source package too).
> Thanks for all your answers!!!
Welcome.
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
Reply to: