Hello all, I want to copy packaging of OTB from DebianGIS to UbuntuGIS. the targeted distros are precise, vivd, willy. I had read and understood the recommended naming for ubunutgis ppa.
Now earlier, OTB has 6S enabled in ubunutgis ppa without any issue. As it does not have a license available this was removed from debian packages. My question is what is the preferred way to achieve this goal ? I can fork a branch from otb.git/master and activate 6S in it or use some code in debian/rules to set OTB_USE_6S=ON like in qgis. The problem here is that upstream sources are different. I am not sure about updating the repacking which is currently done in master branch. Any help would be much appreciated. On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Rashad Kanavath < [email protected]> wrote: > Hello Bas, > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 10:13 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On 29-12-15 21:42, Rashad Kanavath wrote: >> > Thanks a lot for sponsoring OTB package!. I had comment on bug tracker >> [1] >> > which says splitting of shared libraries is not good for OTB. In OTB the >> > version of all .so from source package changes altogether and it should >> be >> > put in a single package. >> > >> > Should I go back to single libotb and libotb-dev ? >> >> I don't recommend switching back to bundling libraries. >> > > Thanks. > >> >> > I thought it might be easier for other projects to have separated >> packages. >> > But comments from [1] says that each minor release of package must >> result >> > in all libotb* packages to pass through the NEW queue. >> >> Whether a SONAME bump changes the package name for one or many packages >> doesn't make a difference with respect to the NEW queue. Just one >> renamed package is enough to have to pass the NEW queue again. >> >> > Any thoughts ? >> > >> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=809312#15 >> >> ITK & VTK are not good examples of well managed packages in my opinion, >> so I wouldn't look at them for inspiration. >> > > Okay. The comments were saying it causing a burden on co-maintainers and > keeping them away. That is why I asked. if the packaging need to be redone. > I must know. I did seperate because it can be helpful in others. I also > listed that this method was using in qgis for example. which I think has a > similar situation. > > I was thinking if the SONAME have simply the major version instead of > major.minor that might be a good. I can check with this with upstream if > that is feasible. > >> >> The NEW queue is not a bad thing that one should optimize its packaging >> for to avoid. >> > > Okay. I don't know much about NEW queue and it whole process. To put it > simple, the packages are checked manually to keep debian clean legally and > otherwise. > >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Bas >> >> -- >> GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1 >> Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 >> >> > > > -- > Regards, > Rashad > -- Regards, Rashad
