Hi people,
TL;DR: there is currently krita 3.0.1 currently in NEW, and calligra
2.9.11 reaching NEW soon.
In data domenica 4 settembre 2016 13:02:30 CEST, juichenieder-debbie@yahoo.co.uk ha scritto:
> > My guess is that most of these bugs will fix themselves once 2.9 is
> > packaged. I think there were some attempts to fix these before, but the
> > package was rejected by the ftpmasters on copyright grounds - so they'll
> > need to be some work to sort that out.
>
> Yes, pretty much my philosophy. Why put time and energy into fixing something
> that you plan to discard for a newer version shortly after you have fixed it.
> When for all one knows, the upgraded package might auto-fix the problems you
> were trying to fix.
>
> That said, the copyright grounds don't seem too severe... I guess the file that
> they object to appeared in the build before, as they do not upload a new version,
> thus it must also appear in Jessie and Sid ports, and only one file that could
> get downloaded seperately.
It seems the issues that caused the reject of the latest NMU for 2.8.x
are gone in newer calligra versions. Reviewing the licenses of all the
files in calligra, and writing a copyright file for them, has never
been an easy task (more than 22000 files!) -- different approaches to
do this basically caused the friction between a couple of contributors
last year, causing both of them to eventually more their efforts
elsewhere.
> How much of a task goes into packaging something like Calligra? I see that
> calligra-2.9.10 went into the debian VCS on 2015-12-31 (last entry). I have
> no experience in packaging, slowly as time goes on I learn more and more about
> this dark art, until I reach the point where I feel ready to take the plunge.
Excluding the copyright parts, IMHO the packaging parts are not too
difficult: it's mostly building, putting the files installed by upstream
in the right packages, checking that the package relationships
(depends/recommends/etc) are correct, and stuff like that (including
testing, of course).
A potentially problematic part is the size of calligra itself: lots of
sources and libraries/executables, which take at least even 2 hours on
not-super-fast machines: this means that if you want to test a new
split package, or move files from package to package, and so on, it's
a "issue build + take a pause" cycle much longer than a cup of
$beverage...
> > I was thinking about helping packaging Krita, but I haven't found the
> > time as of yet.
>
> I would consider packaging it myself, but as I say, I don't feel quite ready
> to take the plunge just yet, and the time commitment puts me of a bit. I have
> reached the stage where ${misc:Depends} and ${shlibs:Depends} now pique my
> curiosity as that seems part of the initial problem here in this bug. That
> debian autodetects the wrong library (to link against?). As far as I understand.
I've took the time yesterday to work on the new krita 3.x, based on
Qt5+Frameworks; you can find its packaging among the rest of the pkg-kde
repositories [1]. Packaging itself didn't take much, but as usual
copyright took quite a lot. Anyway, I deemed it acceptable for now, so
built and uploaded it to NEW. If you have any improvements for it,
please reach me directly so I can queue them until krita is in NEW.
Regarding calligra: first of all, I dropped entirely krita from there
(because of src:krita), then cleaned up the rest of the packaging work
done already. Right now it's building on my machine, and will be
uploaded to NEW afterwards. As above, please do reach me directly for
any change until it's accepted in unstable again.
[1] https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-kde/kde-std/krita.git
Regards,
--
Pino ToscanoAttachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.