Hi, the package have been updated, removed any binaries or class files from it.
Thanks Damian On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Damian Minkov <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Tony, > > thanks for the quick comments on our package, we have some questions: > > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 7:14 AM, tony mancill <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 12/10/2012 05:13 AM, Damian Minkov wrote: >> >> > We are looking for a sponsor for our package "jitsi" >> > >> > * Package name : jitsi >> > Version : 1.1.4365-1 >> > Upstream Author : Jitsi Community <[email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]>> >> > * URL : https://jitsi.org/ >> > * License : LGPL v2 >> > Section : net >> >> > http://mentors.debian.net/package/jitsi >> > dget -x >> > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/j/jitsi/jitsi_1.1.4365-1.dsc >> >> Hello Damian, >> >> I'm glad to see a package of jitsi. I've taken a look at the packaging >> on mentors.d.o and I think there is some additional work to do before >> the package can be included in Debian. >> >> The first thing I would suggest is that the orig.tar.gz be repacked to: >> >> a) not include binary JARs or .class files >> - For example, there are 3 separate copies of junit alone. > > > Oh OK. They must have slipped in accidentally. We'll remove them in the next > submission > >> >> >> b) exclude copies source libraries that are already packaged for Debian >> - For example, libavcodec > > > We had a quick test with libav and we seemed to be missing some headers (as > opposed to when using ffmpeg 1.0). We can give it another try and look some > more. I am wondering however if we could somehow CC the corresponding > maintainers and maybe have some feedback from them as well. > >> >> >> c) exclude copies of distinct libraries that should be packaged >> separately. >> - For example, ice4j (even though you're also upstream for that), jsip > > > We completely understand the advantages of committing things into separate > packages. The thing is that we started work on the Jitsi source deb package > around the beginning of August and it has taken us that long to get here. We > were hence hoping that we could work on getting the first version in its > current form. We were planning on ultimately spinning off libs such as ice4j > and libjitsi but given that no other projects are currently depending on > them we were hoping that it could wait. > > Is this unreasonable? > > Thanks > Damian > >> >> >> I recognize that these may represent significant effort - particularly >> (b) and (c) - given that the library versions in the source tarball >> appear to be newer than the versions in Debian and that the libraries in >> (c) will each become a separate package. >> >> The reason behind (b) and (c) is the section Debian Policy concerning >> "convenience copies of code" [1]. The reason for (a) is that the binary >> artifacts needlessly bloat the archive. >> >> This is the right list to help with (c), and (b) as possible for Java >> packages. >> >> Cheers, >> tony >> >> >> [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-embeddedfiles >> >> > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAE07f0+Ge=zbzfd25ut4d+rpuafj2cphjf2p5_jjzygqmn_...@mail.gmail.com
