[Pkg-crosswire-devel] BibleTime packaging status -- big improvement!

[Jonathan Marsden]

Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote, quoting me:

(Hmmm, you've changed your name in email headers into the Latin charset
from Cyrillic?  Or else my email client is suddenly behaving differently
than it used to, and transliterating it for me???)

>> I: bibletime: arch-dep-package-has-big-usr-share 11144kB 84%
>>
>> which means that it puts a *ton* of stuff under /usr/share, and we need
>> to have some of it be installed in more appropriate locations!  We may
>> also want to split out the copious multilingual documentation into a
>> bibletime-doc package, or something along those lines.  Maybe even
>> language specific documentation packages, so that English speakers are
>> not downloading and installing Russian documentation, and vice versa?

> Good idea. I think further discussion is needed. But yeah we should
> split it up!

OK; we're on the same page on this one, good.  Are there any BibleTime
developers and/or Crosswire people here who would be either happy or
unhappy if we split the documentation out into a separate binary package
(which could be arch-independent of course, so avoiding this lintian
complaint)?

> You already have ${shlibs:Depends} in your control file. This variable is
> replaced by all shared libraries necessary to run that particular deb. And
> we should use it and not mingle with the shared libraries dependencies on
> our own.

Agreed.

> If you are referring to the build warnings, it is the upstream cmake
> which is wrong!

Yes, that was my initial conclusion too, but I'm not (yet?) cmake-savvy
enough to know where to go patch the upstream cmake config files to
avoid all the unused linked libraries that are complained about during
the debuild process.  I'll leave that to you :)

Also, tabthorpe (who is often in #bibletime on Freenode) packages BT for
FreeBSD; he may have met this same issue already, and dealt with it?  If
I remember to, I'll ask him about that.

> I'll try to look into fixing it, then we will either have a patch
> to apply at build time or we might get it into upstream =D

Cool.  Either or both would be good; IMO this is not an absolute
requirement for Ubuntu Jaunty anyway, we could leave it for later if it
looks like being a lot of work to get sorted out.  The binary will work
100% fine as is, it just pulls in more libraries than it would have to
if we fixed it up.

Actually, I think we could ask for our bibletime packaging to be put
into Debian experimental as is (after a bit more testing, maybe!); the
"too much stuff in /usr/share" thing is only an Info message, not a
Warning, from lintian.  Daniel would probably know one way or the
other... if he is reading his email from Brussels/Fossdem ? :)

One thought: has anyone tried building and running this version of
BibleTime against the current libsword6 packages??  If that combination
works, then we could get BT updated in Debian (experimental) even before
we have libsword7 in a suitably finished state for upload.

Jonathan