Ah, I've done some modifications in the copyright and changelog https://github.com/tfmoraes/sigar/tree/debian/debian
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Thiago Franco Moraes <tfmor...@cti.gov.br> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Andreas Tille <ti...@debian.org> wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 11:45:38AM -0300, Thiago Franco Moraes wrote: >>> Ah, that was my fault. I was only trying to package the java binding, >>> only tests. I just forget to put ant in dependencies. >> >> OK. >> >>> >> - changelog doesn't list ITP bug number >>> > >>> > You should file a bug report against the virtual WNPP package - just >>> > tell me if this hint is not enough and you need more detailed >>> > information. >>> >>> I filled a bug report here >>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=575873 >> >> So you need to close the bug in the changelog - that's all. >> >>> > So why not changing to libs? >>> >>> Michael did that. >> >> Fine. >> >>> >> - I saw that you build a shared lib of libsigar -- did you talk to >>> >> upstream about SO version management yet? >>> > >>> > That's a more interesting question. So did anybody talked to upstream? >>> >>> About that no. And it something I don't have any knowledgment. I need >>> some help here. >> >> OK, this will be left to do. >> >>> >> - debian.copyright is still a template >>> > >>> > Do you need help to fill in the text into this template? If yes just >>> > let us know. >>> >>> Yes, I need some help. Here >>> http://forums.hyperic.com/jiveforums/thread.jspa?threadID=9833 I asked >>> the sigar developers about copyright. >> >> IMHO regarding copyright this is quite simple: Just look into the >> COPYRIGHT file provided inside the upstream tarball and you know what >> license they have. But this forum thread obviosely discusses also the >> SO version issue (without a reliable outcome anyway). >> >>> > I have no idea whether this binding is actually needed for some purpose. >>> > If not we might ignore this for the moment. Otherwise it would be >>> > interesting to know exactly what the exact problem was what you stopped >>> > you. >>> >>> I don't have any experience with java. >> >> Me neighter - but in case it would be needed for InVesalius we should >> consult Debian Java team. Could you please confirm whether Invesalius >> needs the Java binding or not? > > No, only python binding is necessary. > >>> I don't know what files are >>> necessaries and how to test if the java sigar bindings is working. >> >>> > Is there any reason not to use >>> > >>> > git.debian.org/git/debian-med/sigar >>> >>> Because sigar is using github. >> >> That's NO reason at all. We are developing the packaging directory >> debian/ which can be perfectly separated from the original source code. >> Our SVN workflow does only store this in SVN (see Debian Med policy[1] - >> you might like to store this document under your pillow ;-) ). The Git >> addicts keep a copy of the source code as pristine-tar import in the >> repository (for reasons I did not fully understood but that should be >> discussed somewhere else and its probably me who has to learn some >> bits about Git - probably it is easier to create patches). >> >> However, what we are changing is the debian/ dir plus patches we are >> forewarding upstream. It makes perfectly sense to have this stuff all >> together in git.debian.org/debian-med and submit the patches to the >> official upstream repository (but NOT the debian/ dir which does not >> belong to the upstream source). >> >> I now cloned the git repository from github and realised that there >> is no debian/ dir which in turn I have found via > > I'm a novice in git. I think you have to change to debian branch. > >> dget http://dl.dropbox.com/u/817671/packages/sigar_1.7.0%7Esvn5287-1.dsc >> >> Could anybody of you please make a proper clone of the current state >> *including* the latest version of debian/ in git.debian.org? I'm >> also fine with just keeping the debian/ dir simply in SVN because >> it seems not to be under Git control anyway. >> >> When inspecting all this stuff I also realised that there is one stable >> release of SIGAR which has version 1.6.4 and version 1.7 was (long = one >> year ago) promised to be released. I'd be in favour of packaging a >> stable release - provided that this fits the requirements of our final >> target InVesalius. Could you please comment whether InVesalius would >> build with SIGAR 1.6.4? (Sorry if this was discussed previousely.) > > I wasn't able to compile python binding in SIGAR 1.6.4. > >> Kind regards >> >> Andreas. >> >> >> [1] http://debian-med.alioth.debian.org/docs/policy.html >> >> -- >> http://fam-tille.de >> >> > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktinmo+fyjbik84ovex292swjhz5vhufiojqhp...@mail.gmail.com
