Re: RFS: solarpowerlog
Am Freitag, den 23.12.2011, 01:20 +0200 schrieb George Danchev:
> On Thursday 22 December 2011 23:49:36 Tobias Frost wrote:
> > Hallo George,
>
> Hoi,
>
> (top posting is not preferred:)
>
> > dbixxx is currently not used and could be removed for the moment -- I
> > only have a feature branch that needs this library, but this feature is
> > quite low priority for the moment. (Probably best I remove it from trunk
> > for the time being...)
>
> Okay, let's forget dbixx for a while.
>
> > About ctemplate -- this is unfortunatly I library I really needed for a
> > key feature of solarpowerlog. (solarpowerlog statically links to it)
> > I fear that this library is not very often used in other projects, so I
> > cannot tell if it would be accepted by debian as an own package. Also
> > upstream of this library seems not to be active, last release was in
> > 2009. So basically libctemplate could also be considered more as a kind
> > of a part of solarpowerlog than an own library. Of course I monitor
> > upstream for any changes.
>
> Well, you can't have it both ways, either it has its own upstream (and so
> packaged separately as source, and resp. binary packages) or you claim to
> adopt it upstream jammed into your own project upstream. Even in that latter
> case, you can still split separate shared library and -dev binary packages.
No, not what I mean... My message should be more like "upstream
development seems to have ceased" and "I use the code not like a library
but more like as the code would be contained in my src directory". I
just keep it seperate ensure that everyone knows that this is code is
not programmed by myself.
To illustrate, I modified it to generate 25% smaller files (by
eliminating double whitespaces) but the upstream author did not want to
add this feature to his codebase. (so actually I use a fork of his
library).
I would love to keep that feature for solarpowerlog, but if it will be
packaged for "general" use I probably need to drop that feature as it
has a sligthly different behaviour in respect to the version at
sourceforge.
> Of
> course, it would be better to be packaged as a separate source package, since
> it is still a separate upstream project, and it doesn't even look tiny to be
> merged into another, larger one.
Its tiny... It is only two files that makes the library. The remaining
files parts are examples.
> > Nethertheless, I was already thinking about packaging it (if it can be
> > accepted in debian), but I thought to postpone this for a moment until I
> > gained some experience in art of packaging.
>
> There is no rush, have your time.
>
> > My question is, would it be ok -- in this circumstances -- to keep
> > ctemplate part of solarpowerlog for the time being?
>
> Why going that route? It would be a compromise, which could be avoided. You
> don't want your favorite distro to be full of packaged stuff, which embeds
> copies and statically links to them :)
Well, I got and agree with your point in general.. Im just wondering, if
I actually still just *use* this library or I *specialized* it to suit
my program better...
(Opps, it almost 3 am.... I better go to bed now.)
coldtobi
Reply to: