[pkg-bacula-devel] Bug#780155: ITP: baculum -- Baculum WebGUI tool for Bacula Community program

Marcin Haba marcin.haba at bacula.pl
Fri Nov 13 20:49:04 UTC 2015

Hello Carsten,

On 13.11.2015 20:47, Carsten Leonhardt wrote:
> Hallo Marcin,
>> [...] but I understand that the framework has to be packaged as
>> independent deb package.
> That would be optimal. I had a quick look, and only tinymce seems to be
> packaged in Debian already, although it looks very neglected. Maybe it
> would be a good question to ask on the debian-mentors list, if in this
> case the third party sources should be packaged separately, because
> according my quick searches on packages.debian.org no other package
> contains any of these parts.

Thanks for your advise about send question related with framework
dependencies to the debian-mentors list. If it is possible I would like
to unbundle framework from third party sources and prepare separated
packages for each unbundled project. They are (without TinyMCE):

- FirePHPCore
- Markdown (PHP version)
- Parsedown
- PhpShell
- ReCaptcha
- SafeHtml
- TextHighlighter
- WsdlGen

Then I will prepare the PRADO framework package which will depend (and
which will use) packages from above listed projects.

At the end I will try to prepare Baculum that will use all above
(framework + related projects) as binary packages.

I would like to follow this way because I really like the PRADO
framework and it might be nice contribution for PRADO users that use
Debian. It also could be good exercise for me to get to know more
detailed deb packages preparation process.

In your first mail you mentioned that I need sponsor. Yes, it is true,
however first I have to read more about building deb packages. Then I
try to report new ITP with first project to unbundle from framework and
I will look for a sponsor.

Is the order OK or I missed something?

>> Summarizing, it looks that there is needed to do:
>> - Unbundle and package external framework components,
>> - Prepare the unbundled framework package,
>> - and then prepare Baculum package.
>> It is huge amount of work. I am writing about it for inform you about
>> required work to Baculum packages preparation.
>> I am able to do most of these works self. I understand that I do not
>> have enough knowledge to prepare fully valid Debian packages and in this
>> point I would like to ask you about help.
>> Here my question is - if Debian Bacula Team is still interested Baculum
>> as Debian package?
> Yes, and I'd be willing to do the uploads once the packaging is done.

Thank you. That is nice.

>> About #656891 ITP request - Bweb is not longer developed in Bacula
>> Community Project and from version 7.0 the Bweb is not provided with
>> bacula-gui tar archive. From this reason I think that merging bug
>> #656891 with Baculum ITP is not needed.
> So I understand bweb is obsolete, and with it the RFP.

Yes. In Bacula Community Project the last version that includes Bweb as
bacula-gui archive is version 5.2.13.

Best regards.
Marcin Haba

> Yours,
> leo

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-bacula-devel/attachments/20151113/75fece28/attachment.sig>

More information about the pkg-bacula-devel mailing list