Am Freitag, den 23.12.2011, 01:20 +0200 schrieb George Danchev: > On Thursday 22 December 2011 23:49:36 Tobias Frost wrote: > > Hallo George, > > Hoi, > > (top posting is not preferred:) > > > dbixxx is currently not used and could be removed for the moment -- I > > only have a feature branch that needs this library, but this feature is > > quite low priority for the moment. (Probably best I remove it from trunk > > for the time being...) > > Okay, let's forget dbixx for a while. > > > About ctemplate -- this is unfortunatly I library I really needed for a > > key feature of solarpowerlog. (solarpowerlog statically links to it) > > I fear that this library is not very often used in other projects, so I > > cannot tell if it would be accepted by debian as an own package. Also > > upstream of this library seems not to be active, last release was in > > 2009. So basically libctemplate could also be considered more as a kind > > of a part of solarpowerlog than an own library. Of course I monitor > > upstream for any changes. > > Well, you can't have it both ways, either it has its own upstream (and so > packaged separately as source, and resp. binary packages) or you claim to > adopt it upstream jammed into your own project upstream. Even in that latter > case, you can still split separate shared library and -dev binary packages.
No, not what I mean... My message should be more like "upstream development seems to have ceased" and "I use the code not like a library but more like as the code would be contained in my src directory". I just keep it seperate ensure that everyone knows that this is code is not programmed by myself. To illustrate, I modified it to generate 25% smaller files (by eliminating double whitespaces) but the upstream author did not want to add this feature to his codebase. (so actually I use a fork of his library). I would love to keep that feature for solarpowerlog, but if it will be packaged for "general" use I probably need to drop that feature as it has a sligthly different behaviour in respect to the version at sourceforge. > Of > course, it would be better to be packaged as a separate source package, since > it is still a separate upstream project, and it doesn't even look tiny to be > merged into another, larger one. Its tiny... It is only two files that makes the library. The remaining files parts are examples. > > Nethertheless, I was already thinking about packaging it (if it can be > > accepted in debian), but I thought to postpone this for a moment until I > > gained some experience in art of packaging. > > There is no rush, have your time. > > > My question is, would it be ok -- in this circumstances -- to keep > > ctemplate part of solarpowerlog for the time being? > > Why going that route? It would be a compromise, which could be avoided. You > don't want your favorite distro to be full of packaged stuff, which embeds > copies and statically links to them :) Well, I got and agree with your point in general.. Im just wondering, if I actually still just *use* this library or I *specialized* it to suit my program better... (Opps, it almost 3 am.... I better go to bed now.) coldtobi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1324605075.8075.75.camel@localhost
