Hallo Marcin, > [...] but I understand that the framework has to be packaged as > independent deb package.
That would be optimal. I had a quick look, and only tinymce seems to be packaged in Debian already, although it looks very neglected. Maybe it would be a good question to ask on the debian-mentors list, if in this case the third party sources should be packaged separately, because according my quick searches on packages.debian.org no other package contains any of these parts. > Summarizing, it looks that there is needed to do: > - Unbundle and package external framework components, > - Prepare the unbundled framework package, > - and then prepare Baculum package. > > It is huge amount of work. I am writing about it for inform you about > required work to Baculum packages preparation. > > I am able to do most of these works self. I understand that I do not > have enough knowledge to prepare fully valid Debian packages and in this > point I would like to ask you about help. > > Here my question is - if Debian Bacula Team is still interested Baculum > as Debian package? Yes, and I'd be willing to do the uploads once the packaging is done. > About #656891 ITP request - Bweb is not longer developed in Bacula > Community Project and from version 7.0 the Bweb is not provided with > bacula-gui tar archive. From this reason I think that merging bug > #656891 with Baculum ITP is not needed. So I understand bweb is obsolete, and with it the RFP. Yours, leo
