Update to upstream of Calligra's Debian package for testing

Raúl Sánchez Siles rasasi78 at gmail.com
Thu Dec 27 17:01:56 UTC 2012


El Viernes, 21 de diciembre de 2012, Philip Van Hoof escribió:
> On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 18:14 +0100, Raúl Sánchez Siles wrote:
> >  Hi:
> > El Jueves, 20 de diciembre de 2012, Philip Van Hoof escribió:
> > > Hi there,
> >   By the way, there's already an experimental branch[0] on the packaging
> > 
> > repository targeted towards 2.6. It already coped for 2.5.91 version, and
> > I had locally some more commits towards 2.5.92 which I've just pushed
> > now, sorry for not making them available before.
> Aha yes. I looked quickly to all the available branches but none of them
> where for my needs recent enough. In particular has Part.h been added to
> the installed headers of calligrasheets' library quite recently. My
> software needs that commit.

  Taking a look at upstream calligra I'd say that commit providing that 
functionallity it's 91b1e4324b3 If you really need that file I'd go for 
backporting that commit and enabling (and tidying up) calligra-dev package.

> > > I started this work because I need a very recent version of calligra
> > > and more specifically calligra-dev for one of my customer's
> > > development needs. As we want to use FAI the idea is to do everything
> > > in Debian packaging. And then why not also post the changes to
> > > upstream Debian? So here you go.
> > > 
> >   To be honest I'm not fond of working with such a moving target as
> >   calligra upstream master. I was once discouraged about that and I now also 
> >   support this position. master moves very fast and calligra is such a beast 
> >   to build. Up to now I don't know about an incremental packaging system
> > which may be considered for this situation.
> I agree. But perhaps it'll be useful to keep this patch around to help
> migrating current experimental branch to a next milestone version of
> Calligra.

  I've applied it on my local tree. I'll keep it around in case we need it some 
day (hopefully soon)

> >   Moreover wheezy is frozen and therefore only experimental is available
> >   for packages. I thought about using experimental eventually for 2.6 since
> > master is far beyond our nowadays calligra packaging aims.
> Yes I don't expect this to go to wheezy. However, with Calligra upstream
> planning to become a better citizen w.r.t. API stability and so-naming,
> perhaps it's not a bad idea to allow some more changes to go into
> wheezy. But that decision is up to you, of course.
> >   So in this situation, what I could propose you is:
> >   
> >   · If calligra 2.6 is not ready for your purposes you could study
> >   backporting those master commits needed.
> nod
> >   · If what you need is a working calligra-dev package let us know and we
> >   can work on that together. Patches are sure welcome, but I think it'd be
> > better to stick to current experimental branch, ie calligra 2.6
> What I need is a calligra-dev package that installs Part.h. And
> installment of Part.h in sheets/part/Part.h implies a refactor that
> happened quite recently. I also need that refactor.

  Are you referring to df977d1d96? I mean, backporting those doesn't look a big 

> Kind regards,
> Philip


     Raúl Sánchez Siles
----->Proud Debian user<-----
Linux registered user #416098
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-kde-talk/attachments/20121227/ac832788/attachment.pgp>

More information about the pkg-kde-talk mailing list