[Pkg-giraffe-discuss] update from zarafa

[Guido Günther]

Hi Mark,
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 03:48:54PM +0200, Mark Dufour wrote:
> hi all,
> 
>  
> on behalf of several other developers and myself at zarafa, I am
> happy to announce that (after some private communication) we would
> like to actively help out (again?) getting zarafa properly packaged
> in debian. over the past year there have been two important
> developments inside zarafa in this regard:

Great news, Welcome aboard! Would you be interested to join the
pkg-giraffe alioth project to develop the packaging there or is there
any public git repo carrying 7.2 already?

>  
> 1) we have been working on separating out libgsoap, which since
> times ancient has been statically linked into zarafa (version 2.7.13
> if I'm not mistaken). it looks like for the 7.2 release we can
> finally get rid of this (new configure option: --with-system-gsoap).

Great!

> 
>  
> 2) in part triggered by your rebranding effort, we have been working
> on a new and improved trademark license based on that of
> libreoffice, which ideally would mean that no debranding is
> necessary. not for the name and not for the logos.

Can you post a link to the list once this is visible publicly?

> 
>  
> also, webaccess is not being developed anymore by now, and probably
> will be removed as of 7.2. some of the issues mentioned on the wiki
> have probably already been solved in its successor webapp (the .swf
> file, and the fsckeditor are gone at least).

Great. Should this be packaged as a separate project?

>  
> for now we would like to have a conversation about the issues on the
> wiki that would still need to be solved. I'd like to start with the
> dlopen issue. we're moving libraries around quite a bit for the 7.2
> release already, so perhaps we can easily solve this right away.
> 
>  
> so for the user plugins, it seems easy. we just move them somewhere
> outside of /usr/lib, right? (they are now in /usr/lib/zarafa.) where
> would they ideally by located? as for the rest, I think there are
> only libzarafaclient.so and libzarafacontacts.so remaining. as these
> are probably always opened using dlopen via libmapi.so, I think it
> wouldn't hurt to move them into the same dir as the plugins. would
> this solve the issue for you?

Yes. The requirement is basically to not have SOs without a SO version
in /usr/lib (or any other dir looked into by ld.so by default).

>  
> as for libvmime and libical, is there anything left to do if our
> intention is for zarafa to work with the debian-provided versions of
> these? I would consider it a bug if we are dependant on a patched
> version of either.

There were Zarafa specific patches once, in case they're now merged
upstream that's great. I didn't find a pubilc VCS for 7.2 to verify
(see above).

Cheers,
 -- Guido