[SCM] WebKit Debian packaging branch, debian/unstable, updated. debian/1.0.2+pre.svn37878-1-3024-g716ac29

[Mike Hommey]

On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 06:55:08AM -0300, Gustavo Noronha wrote:
> [err... I should have pressed reply to list, sorry for the duplicate Mike =)]
> 
> On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 22:58 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 07:50:21PM +0000, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> > > The following commit has been merged in the debian/unstable branch:
> > 
> > In the end, you didn't put that in the debian/experimental branch ?
> > Do you know the status for libsoup ?
> 
> I have done the work in debian/unstable anyway because I thought we
> could easily move it to debian/experimental when/if needed. The new
> libsoup is in experimental, but not in its final form. I believe we can
> upload there by now, but it getting ready will take some time, since it
> now has a new -gnome package, which depends on libproxy (in NEW).

Let's work on the debian/experimental branch, then, for the moment.

> > > +  * debian/control, debian/libwebkit-1.0-common.install:
> > > +  - new package to distribute data files, such as the Web Inspector files
> > > +  - libwebkit-1.0-2 now depends on libwebkit-1.0-common
> > 
> > Is the package going to be big enough to justify the split ? Just asking
> > out of curiosity. I haven't taken a look at how big the DOM Inspector
> > is.
> 
> kov at abacate ~> dpkg -s libwebkit-1.0-common | grep -i size
> Installed-Size: 1508
> 
> I think it makes sense to have the package split now, because we may
> have more data addition in the future, such as custom graphics and html
> pages for error messages and such.
> 
> > > + This package contains the common files which the libraries need.
> > > +
> > 
> > That doesn't sound like what it is ;)
> 
> Oops =). I blame my bad copy/pasting to my mind being slowed down by
> messing with debian/copyright hehe. I'm leaving for Bossa Conference
> today, but I'll work on fixing this mistake and moving the branch to
> debian/experimental if you want on sunday or monday, from there.
> 
> Other thing we need to decide is what to do with the new GNOME Keyring
> support added to the http basic auth password storage. Do you want to
> build a -gnome version of the library, so that others can keep depending
> on the "pure" version?

How difficult would that be to have this feature pluggable ? (ie use the
gnome keyring if we have the libs installed but not depend on it)

Shouldn't that be something to handle at libsoup level with its -gnome
package?

Mike