[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#650636: gephi debian package



Hi all,

My intention was always to package Gephi under the banner of the Java
team. Unfortunately the Netbeans platform is a dependency, and getting
that in a good state (and keeping up with upstream releases) has been
more challenging than I initially expected. When I started on this, the
only Netbeans package was in non-free because it bundled jar files of
its dependencies. I'm pretty much there on getting the latest Netbeans
platform uploaded, although I do need some help with sponsering a few
packages.

A further complication is that since I last had a working Gephi package,
the Gephi build system was updated to use Maven. Getting the relevant
plugins packaged will also be needed, so that we can properly build
against the Netbeans platform. Failing that, we'll need to heavily patch
the Gephi build system, which doesn't sound like much fun...

Anyway, if others are keen to work on this then we should try and make a
plan, but be prepared to get stuck in with Maven packaging.

Thanks,
Andy

On 06/09/13 07:10, Rogério Brito wrote:
> Hi there again.
>
> On Sep 02 2013, Rogério Brito wrote:
>> I wonder if, somehow, changing to team-maintenance wouldn't be better for
>> the package overall? Perhaps the highly skilled people that already package
>> Java things for Debian may be interested in this? I'm CCing them.
>>
>> Otherwise, changing the status from ITP to RFP would free people to work on
>> it instead of the "deadlock" here. After all, the original bug was filed on
>> "1 Dec 2011" which will soon complete 2 years! (I almost did this without
>> asking for other people's opinions).
> OK, I just went ahead and removed this ITP and owned thing.
>
> If that was premature, then just modify it again, but, please, keep the bug
> updated with events/progress of the packaging, so other people are not left
> wondering what the status of the packaging is and can actually work on the
> darned thing.
>
>
> Regards,
>


Reply to: