Hi Damien On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 15:48 +0200, Damien Raude-Morvan wrote: > So, JenkisCI is using a fork (jenkins-htmlunit-core-js) of the fork > (htmlunit-core-js [1]) > of Rhino package... JenkisCI upstream seems a love code (and > effort...) > duplication. I don't disagree that this is pretty ugly; Jenkins CI upstream does fork other projects frequently - here's a short list of the ones I'm being impacted by during packaging: dom4j commons-jexl json-lib htmlunit xstream commons-jelly winstone trilead-ssh2 and ones I intend to avoid: jcifs jinterop Although some of these forks may be due to upstream inactivity I think this reflects the ~weekly release schedule of the project and the ease at which they can fork and upstream and maintain it to resolve their immediate issues. The introduction of a 3 monthly stable release should help reduce the impact of the standard release velocity but it does not necessarily remove the forked dependencies. I have seen forks disappear and the project revert back to mainstream upstream (jmdns was an example of this but I just noticed they forked it again - doh!). > /with my rhino package maintainer hat/ > Rhino is - now - an active project again (at least, they made a new > release on 2011-06-03 [2]). > You should try to convince JenkisCI team to merge back its changes [3] > (and htmlunit changes [4]) back into Rhino Absolutely; I'll endeavour to work on making this happen. I appreciate that this upstream behaviour does increase the effort required to support packaging of jenkins. I have the packaging in place so the additional effort is not really on me in the short term (although I expect to have to deal with updates and bug fixes) - it will be whomever sponsors these packages for me. Do you think this will block entry into Debian? Cheers James -- James Page Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server Team
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part