Re: RFS: solarpowerlog
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. 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.
> 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 :)
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
Reply to: