[Pkg-crosswire-devel] Packaging Project Planning
dmitrij.ledkov at gmail.com
Wed May 20 01:16:08 BST 2009
2009/5/20 Jonathan Marsden <jmarsden at fastmail.fm>:
> Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>> What do we want to achieve before uploading to unstable?
>> Are we repackaging it or not? If yes, what are we gonna remove from the
> I think we need to remove the ftplib file (name forgotten, I'm at work!).
> We also need to delete the zlib files and perhaps something else I've
> forgotten, in the rules file. I think I asked you to propose a patch that
> does this second part, but I've not seen one... do you want me to work on
I think you mean ftpparse..... well it FTBS without it. There is a
Public-Domain replacement in the package ftp-copy which can be
"borrowed" I've tried building with that, but unfortunatly sword will
need tweaking and adjusting to use that one.
After searching through BTS I've found a few references to that
library it is written by DJB. He had a high-profile court case where
he was on "our" side challenging copyright law as far as I understand.
But he also dislikes GPL that's why his licenses are very brief as in
our case it says "Commercial use is fine if you let me know". I was
thinking to write him an email saying it is used in "Libsword and any
application linked against it" to be done with it.
there is also win32/dirent.[cpp|h] saying BSD but you can only charge
to cover the cost of distribution which is not GPL compatible.
> We most definitely need to update debian/copyright to talk about all the
> non-SWORD code in the tarball.
Yeap I'll do that
> I think we also need to have some confidence that osis2mod from 1.6.0 really
> works, and right now it seems to be buggy. I think we should wait a bit and
> see how that goes; we can include patches to fix these issues if necessary,
> rather than waiting for a 1.6.1 release.
I definatly want to hit stable with very stable sword. But on the
other hand I'm not a power user of sword so yes I agree on this one
osis2mod does need to be improved.
> We (I) also need to do the lintian override for /usr/share/sword/ .
I'll do this, should be easy =D
> We also need to look for any remaining 22.214.171.124 or similar version numbers
> and update them to 1.6.0, in our packaging files. I'm sure there is at
> least one.
Hmmm.... I think I've followed the suite on this one =D so I *might*
have added some more =D
>> I would want to double check that doc-base works
> Go for it :)
Sure, trying to tackle Hardy release.
> Bibledit leads the way. My bibledit 3.7-1 package is already in Debian
> unstable, and Debian testing, and Ubuntu Karmic :) :) Is there something
> about it that you want to change?
Hmmm =D can it fix my packages for me? I guess that is a wishlist bug.
> Is very close to 2.0 rc1, so by the time our SWORD 1.6.0 packaging is done
> we may have a BT 2.0. I'm not sure we should put 2.0beta2 into Debian
> unstable, although we could if necessary/appropriate.
I'm a little bit uneasy about betas in unstable. They do automaticly
migrate to testing.... ~70% of Debian users run testing....
>> Before we upload I would love to try rebuilding everything in Lenny &
>> Sid and testing the debs with piuparts
> Go for it :) I have been rebuilding in sid and lenny VMs fairly often, so I
> don't forsee major issues there. I've not spent much time on piuparts, my
> earlier attempts did not work well, and I didn't get back to it. Probably
> just my mistake.
That will take a while to setup plus I have exams coming up....
>> After reading up blog posts about debhelper7 I was very temted to try
>> it out. ...
> Don't we already set debian/compat to 7 (and use some of the extra
> automation that gives us)? I thought I did that some time ago, it made
> something easier for me in debian/rules... will recheck when I get home.
Ok, no objections then =D I will upload debhelper7 for hardy into our
ppa so that I can use dh7 full-fledged without worrying about tweaking
separatly everything for Hardy
>> Lenny NOW
>> There are no PPA's for lenny. I've manage to create download's area on
>> our "crosswire" project on launchpad shall we upload alpha lenny debs
>> there? Cause there was a request for Lenny debs today.....
> PPAs are for Ubuntu. If you want to host a little temporary personal .deb
> repository somewhere for pkgcrosswire Lenny, go for it. But don't mix Lenny
> .debs into the PPAs , I think that's potentially confusing. If it is just
> for one or two users, I could host some files under
> http://computeroptions.net/sword/debian/ if that would help. Or
> http://jmarsden.org/sword/debian if you prefer :)
I think Sid is far away from Lenny right now so people are a bit
reluctant to pull things from there cause that breaks people's
systems. Original plan was to use backports.org once we are in
testing, but until then provide downloadable debs.
On the other hand your place will be able to store Package.gz which
will turn it into apt-aware repository. How are you with traffic? And
will you be able to do ftp, http, https or ssh uploads? cause we can
maintain debs and package.gz (I know horrid) in a bzr branch and use
upload plugin to push the latest revision upto your download area. I'm
just worried about traffic a little bit.
> However: if you really think our SWORD and Xiphos packages for Debian are
> ready for end users, say so, and we can get them into Debian experimental
> right away, via Roberto. Then (daring) users can grab them from there using
> apt-get (and pinning so they don't get everything else in experomental, of
> course). That's better than any PPA/download/etc. approach, IMO.
SWORD and Xiphos are in experimental already ;-) see above.
To be fair I would like to wait for KDE and GNOME transitions to
finish in Debian (they are killing KDE 3.5 and GTK 1.x in Squeeze) but
have libsword8 waiting in new queue shortly after.
With best regards
Dmitrijs Ledkovs (for short Dima),
Ледков Дмитрий Юрьевич
More information about the Pkg-crosswire-devel