I think that it will be easier to create a new libitext5-java package, this will be easier for everybody and will not require any transition. You will need to install itext5.jar in /usr/share/java. There was a new Debian Java policy in preparation where major versions are used in package names, I'm not sure where it is, but do ask around.
Ludovic On 12/02/2010 11:59 PM, Andrew Ross wrote: > > Hi all, > > I'm working on packaging Gephi for Debian, and one of it's dependencies > is the iText package. Gephi use version 5.0.1 of the upstream package, > the latest being 5.0.5. > > Currently we have 2.1.7 in Debian: > http://packages.qa.debian.org/libi/libitext-java.html > > The version jumped directly from 2.1.7 to 5.0.0 (see > http://itextpdf.com/history/ ) however there are some major changes. As > I see it, the most relevant ones are: > > * The F/OSS license has been upgraded from MPL/LGPL to AGPL. > > * The package names have changed from com.lowagie to com.itextpdf. > > * The toolbox and RTF support have been removed: they are now in a > separate project at SourceForge. > > So, any code using the current library won't work if we update it to > 5.0.x, and any core using the toolbox or RTF parts of the library will > break. > > I had a search for dependent packages using apt-rdepends: > > libitext-java > Reverse Depends: libitext-java-gcj (>= 2.1.7-2) > Reverse Depends: libitext-rtf-java (= 2.1.7-2) > Reverse Depends: libitext-rups-java (= 2.1.7-2) > Reverse Depends: liblayout-java (0.2.8.dfsg-1) > Reverse Depends: libpentaho-reporting-flow-engine-java (0.9.2-3) > Reverse Depends: pdfsam (1.1.4-1) > Reverse Depends: pdftk (1.41+dfsg-9) > Reverse Depends: pescetti (0.5-1) > Reverse Depends: salliere (0.10-1) > Reverse Depends: sweethome3d (2.5+dfsg-1) > Reverse Depends: tuxguitar (1.2-7) > Reverse Depends: umlet (10.4-1) > > So it looks like an update would break a lot of things. The last major > update to this package resulted in the creation of the libitext1-java > package to satisfy old dependencies. Would it make sense to do the same > thing for the update to 5.0.x, or can we coordinate updates to these > other packages? > > In the short term I think I plan to patch Gephi to use the current > version in Debian, however I'm happy to get involved in working to move > to version 5.0.x. > > What does everyone think? > > Andy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
