On 2014-10-01 02:36:24, Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi Antoine, > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:58:53PM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote: >> I think the major issue that Andreas mentionned there is the >> "DFSG-tarball" generation: the script should be in the debian/ directory >> so the source can be regenerated easily without requiring access the SVN >> repo. The script I could find is this: >> >> http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/pkg-grass/packages/opencpn/tarballs/get_latest_from_git.sh?view=co&revision=HEAD&content-type=text%2Fplain >> >> .. but that script seems to generate a tarball based on the git >> repository, and doesn't seem to checkout any specific tag, so I doubt it >> will work unmodified.
[...] > I admit the request for sponsoring was sooooo long ago that I do not > remember and I see no value to think about aged code. I'd perfectly > agree if the current source for 3.2.2 would be used for packaging. I'd > recommend to use Files-Excluded if any files need to be stripped from > this source tarball (but I did not inspected it regarding this issue). I'm not familiar with this mechanism - but it certainly looks interesting! https://wiki.debian.org/UscanEnhancements Am I correct in understanding this would only simplify the get-orig-source target, not replace it? >> There were also issues with the debian/rules targets for repeated >> builds. >> >> Andreas, was there other things you were thinking should be fixed with >> the package? > > Since there are several upstream releases inbetween I would need to have > another look. Since you obviously had a more recent look and you do > not need a sponsor I'd trust your insight if you say it is OK. I don't think it's okay - it doesn't even build at that stage, especially because we strip so much off the tarball. >> Finally, did anyone take a look at that PPA? Why aren't we just using >> that debian package?? >> >> https://launchpad.net/~opencpn/+archive/ubuntu/opencpn > > I personally did not. The only thing I could say that it always heats > my temper a bit if I learn about another instance of failed > communication between people working on free GIS software. I wonder > why we are not able to catch all those people into our common project > and do not reinvent the wheel over and over. :-( The PPA is from upstream, and is fairly minimal: it doesn't split the code in multiple packages (though I'm not sure why *we* do that in the first place) and doesn't attempt to deduplicate code. >> Thanks for the feedback, > > As you asked for in your other mail I added you to pkg-grass on alioth > (even if Bas mentioned that this is not really needed for DDs). Since > you seem to be Git affine I would suggest the following: Either convert > the current > > svn://svn.debian.org/svn/pkg-grass/packages/opencpn/trunk/ > > to Git or create a new Git repository which is compliant to Debian GIS > policy[1] (fetch the tarball via uscan and use > git import-orig --pristine-tar > to inject the source. Ugh.. pristine-tar... Why do we need this if we're going to strip out half the tarball anyways? > Designe the debian/ dir according to your insight > as a DD (may be ask for review here - but I'm no GIS expert and thus I > can only check packaging details). Well, I'm not sure I'll have much more time to fight for this one - it's a huge mess, that upstream, in terms of licensing and binary data... > Please also get the person responsible fpr the PPA involved and invite > him to join the project offering him cooperation to work on this > repository. This should support his goal to make OpenCPN available in > Ubuntu way better than some random PPA. It's not exactly a random PPA: it's upstream running their own official PPA... A. -- "Faith" means not wanting to know what is true. - Friedrich Nietzshe
pgpLnQpxjrXtp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
