Bug#590180: forked libs in Sigil
Hi,
I spent some time on Sigil last weekend and the result can be seen at
http://fedora.danny.cz/danny/development/SRPMS/repoview/index.html
ZipArchive is unbundled, Sigil builds with system zlib and boost (thanks
to the patches here), also uses system xerces-c if version >= 3.1 is
available (as in Fedora >= 16).
The Windows and OS X influence is very clear in the project.
Dan
Kan-Ru Chen píše v Čt 15. 12. 2011 v 00:37 +0800:
> Hi!
>
> Dan Horák <dan@danny.cz> writes:
>
> >
> > Hello Debian maintainers,
> >
> > I tried to look at packaging Sigil for Fedora and found your packaging
> > request for Debian. In one word it's a nightmare, not only there are
> > bundled copies of libraries, but they are usually also modified, making
> > their unbundling almost impossible :-(
> >
> > My observations are
> > - tidyLib - forked copy of library from the tidy project, there would
> > probably be a chance to get the changes back to tidy, but tidy looks as
> > a dead project
>
> Dead upstream isn't a excuse for copied library. We either have to push
> the changes back to tidy or convince Sigil to maintain the forked tidy
> library separately.
>
> > - ZipArchive - contains forked copy of zlib
>
> I have contacted the current upstream maintainer at several month ago. I
> lost the courage to package it since then, maybe it's time to try
> again. Below is the reply from upstream:
>
> John Schember <john@nachtimwald.com> writes:
>
> > Kan-Ru,
> >
> > The modified libraries you're going to have to live with. Tidy is the
> > main one and it's going to be modified more once EPUB3 comes out.
> > There really isn't any around this one. I haven't had a chance to look
> > into the other ones to see which (if any) others have Sigil specific
> > modifications. Once I have that under control I plan to see about
> > pushing (if possible) the changes upstream.
> >
> > As for why so many libraries are bundled, Strahinja's primarily
> > developed it on Windows. My primary OS is OS X. So bundling makes
> > sense for these platforms. That said I'm not against using system
> > packages when possible and help getting Sigil to use system packages
> > would be appreciated.
> >
> > The build system is cmake and it's possible to add configuration
> > flags. FlightCrew has one for not building the GUI. The cmake files
> > would need to be modified to have an option to use system libraries (I
> > would like to see individual options for each library) and they would
> > need to do what ever is necessary to switch to using system libraries.
> > I want to use the bundled libraries by default because it makes it
> > easier for me (OS X).
> >
> > 0.4 is going to be released very soon. I don't want to make any
> > changes to the build system for this release. Once that I'll be happy
> > to accept patches for using system libraries. Also, Sigil and
> > FlightCrew are split into two separate packages. FlightCrew is just
> > bundled in Sigil like the others. It would certainly be possible for
> > Sigil to be configured to use a system installed FlightCrew as well.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Kan-Ru Chen <koster@debian.org> wrote:
> >> Hi John,
> >>
> >> I read the Sigil development blog and know that you are taking over the
> >> project. First I have to thank you for continuing the hard work so that
> >> Sigil development is active again.
> >>
> >> I've been trying to push/package Sigil into Debian for some time, but it
> >> is hard because the release file includes so many external libraries and
> >> some are even modified. To get this done I'm trying to patch Sigil and
> >> FlightCrew to use system libraries. Since you are about to get 0.4
> >> released, it would be great to split the core Sigil/FlightCrew code and
> >> the dependencies into two different release files, then let the build
> >> system use the system one it found it, or use the bundled one.
> >>
> >> I can help with the build system, and maybe even the code
> >> itself. Looking forward to your reply.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> --
> >> Kanru
> >>
>
Reply to: