Stefane Fermigier writes:
> I'm talking about the facts that valuable packages are not available *at
> all* for us Debian / Ubuntu users.
In the case being discussed here, they're available from your separate apt
repository. If you were running Fedora, getting things from third-party
repositori
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Stefane Fermigier wrote:
> Problem is, this is a policy issue, that is specific from the Java world
The issues Debian faces in packaging Java stuff is definitely not
specific to the Java world. Ruby, C, Python, games, all of them have
had or still do have such is
On Feb 10, 2011, at 11:29 AM, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Stefane Fermigier wrote:
>> On Feb 10, 2011, at 10:51 AM, Giovanni Mascellani wrote:
>>> On 09/02/2011 12:25, Stefane Fermigier wrote:
>>> [...]
>
> Could we please end this thread here ? I'm
Hello,
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Stefane Fermigier wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2011, at 10:51 AM, Giovanni Mascellani wrote:
>> On 09/02/2011 12:25, Stefane Fermigier wrote:
>> [...]
Could we please end this thread here ? I'm glad it turned into a
constructive discussion on a debian maven re
On Feb 10, 2011, at 10:51 AM, Giovanni Mascellani wrote:
> On 09/02/2011 12:25, Stefane Fermigier wrote:
>> 2. sometimes the policies need to be changed in the face of reality.
>> Otherwise, we end up like these poor monkeys:
>>
>> http://freekvermeulen.blogspot.com/2008/08/monkey-story-experime
On Feb 10, 2011, at 10:57 AM, Giovanni Mascellani wrote:
> On 09/02/2011 15:40, Stefane Fermigier wrote:
>> I'm also trying to pass a message: you obviously care about packaging
>> Java applications, so aren't you frustrated that this is so hard (I
>> mean, impossible) to do for any significant a
On 09/02/2011 15:40, Stefane Fermigier wrote:
> I'm also trying to pass a message: you obviously care about packaging
> Java applications, so aren't you frustrated that this is so hard (I
> mean, impossible) to do for any significant and useful business
> application (those that professional Debian
On 09/02/2011 12:25, Stefane Fermigier wrote:
>> My "apt-get source, hack and dpkg-bp" was seen from a derivative
>> developer or sysadmin that has to modify the way a software works
>> on its own system or distribution.
>
> As a sysadmin, I've never found the need to repackage a package.
>
> If
Am 09.02.2011 16:43, schrieb Sylvestre Ledru:
> If the upstream of a library is regularly breaking the ABI (which is not
> uncommon), I will add a check in the build system to make sure that I
> will find the exact version of the upstream library I am using (it does
> help also other distributions)
Bonjour Stéphane,
Le mercredi 09 février 2011 à 16:36 +0100, Stefane Fermigier a écrit :
> On Feb 9, 2011, at 4:02 PM, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Torsten Werner wrote:
> >> Am 09.02.2011 15:24, schrieb Vincent Fourmond:
> >>> The FTPmaster will *never* accept
On Feb 9, 2011, at 4:02 PM, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Torsten Werner wrote:
>> Am 09.02.2011 15:24, schrieb Vincent Fourmond:
>>> The FTPmaster will *never* accept sourceless JARs.
>>
>> we don't accept them into Debian's main component. However they are
>> acc
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Torsten Werner wrote:
> Am 09.02.2011 15:51, schrieb Stefane Fermigier:
>> Can we start this discussion over with this option in mind ?
>
> There is another option that we should discuss:
>
> - distribute all those binary dependencies in a separate package, e.g.
> n
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Torsten Werner wrote:
> Am 09.02.2011 15:24, schrieb Vincent Fourmond:
>> The FTPmaster will *never* accept sourceless JARs.
>
> we don't accept them into Debian's main component. However they are
> acceptable for the non-free component as long as it is allowed to
Am 09.02.2011 15:51, schrieb Stefane Fermigier:
> Can we start this discussion over with this option in mind ?
There is another option that we should discuss:
- distribute all those binary dependencies in a separate package, e.g.
nuxeo-nonfree-libs via alioth.d.o or some other inofficial server
Thanks, Torsten, this is great news !
Can we start this discussion over with this option in mind ?
S.
On Feb 9, 2011, at 3:49 PM, Torsten Werner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 09.02.2011 15:24, schrieb Vincent Fourmond:
>> The FTPmaster will *never* accept sourceless JARs.
>
> we don't accept them in
Hi,
Am 09.02.2011 15:24, schrieb Vincent Fourmond:
> The FTPmaster will *never* accept sourceless JARs.
we don't accept them into Debian's main component. However they are
acceptable for the non-free component as long as it is allowed to
redistribute them in binary form.
Cheers,
Torsten
--
On Feb 9, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Stefane Fermigier wrote:
>>> What is not true? The fact that packaging things in Debian is difficult
>>> or the fact that it's so because it requires some added value?
>>
>> No, the fact that it
On 09/02/2011 14:50, Scott Howard wrote:
>> BTW, here's what geogebra's download page
>> (http://www.geogebra.org/cms/en/download) says: "You are free to
>> copy, distribute and transmit GeoGebra for non-commercial
>> purposes".
>>
>> Isn't this a flagrant violation of the DFSG (Item 6, "No
>> Dis
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Stefane Fermigier wrote:
>> What is not true? The fact that packaging things in Debian is difficult
>> or the fact that it's so because it requires some added value?
>
> No, the fact that it *only* requires "some" added value.
>
> You are requiring *much
This is an interesting problem, there are great open source Java
projects out there that, but no fault of their own, are using
libraries from a repo that Debian can't access (no copyright notice
and no license makes it a non-starter). Add the library versioning/API
breakage potential on top of that
On Feb 9, 2011, at 10:45 AM, Giovanni Mascellani wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On 09/02/2011 10:06, Stefane Fermigier wrote:
>>> I'd say that this one of the main added value of a distribution:
>>> many different pieces of software harmonized together, under a
>>> consistent policy so that people that want t
Hi.
On 09/02/2011 10:06, Stefane Fermigier wrote:
>> I'd say that this one of the main added value of a distribution:
>> many different pieces of software harmonized together, under a
>> consistent policy so that people that want to change something in
>> the source code and recompile just have to
On Feb 9, 2011, at 8:40 AM, Giovanni Mascellani wrote:
> On 09/02/2011 06:12, tony mancill wrote:
>>> etc. So it seems either that nobody cares about getting these fine
>>> (and popular) applications into Debian, or it's just too hard to do
>>> given the current set of policies.
>>
>> I think th
On 09/02/2011 06:12, tony mancill wrote:
>> etc. So it seems either that nobody cares about getting these fine
>> (and popular) applications into Debian, or it's just too hard to do
>> given the current set of policies.
>
> I think this is a fair point. It *is* very difficult to package
> large J
tony mancill writes:
> What I hope to see happen is that Debian will continue to package more
> and more of the popular Java libraries needed for these applications and
> frameworks, to the point where Debian becomes a development platform of
> choice because (a) it's less work to apt-get everyth
On 02/08/2011 11:46 AM, Stefane Fermigier wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2011, at 8:14 PM, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
>>
>> My point is not to discourage you or express scorn or whichever
>> negative view on Nuxeo, but just to state the sine qua none conditions
>> for a package to enter Debian.
>
> Out of curios
Bonjour Stéfane :)
Le mardi 08 février 2011 20:46:27, Stefane Fermigier a écrit :
> On Feb 8, 2011, at 8:14 PM, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
> > My point is not to discourage you or express scorn or whichever
> > negative view on Nuxeo, but just to state the sine qua none conditions
> > for a package t
On Feb 8, 2011, at 8:25 PM, Andrew Ross wrote:
> Hi Julian,
>
> Others have covered the constraints for getting your package into
> Debian. There is one possible alternative you might consider if the work
> to package into Debian is too time consuming. You could publish your own
> apt repository
On Feb 8, 2011, at 8:14 PM, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
>
> My point is not to discourage you or express scorn or whichever
> negative view on Nuxeo, but just to state the sine qua none conditions
> for a package to enter Debian.
Out of curiosity, how many large Java application are currently package
Hi Julian,
Others have covered the constraints for getting your package into
Debian. There is one possible alternative you might consider if the work
to package into Debian is too time consuming. You could publish your own
apt repository containing your package. This would require users to add
you
[CCing you as I don't know if you have subscribed to debian-java]
Hello,
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Julien CARSIQUE wrote:
> About versions and shared resources, sharing libraries is nice but not
> always reliable and, tell me if I'm wrong, I guess a lot of Debian
> applications are bring
Hello,
I'm a maintainer of Nuxeo distributions.
We want to give Debian users an easy access to our open source (LGPL) products.
That means being able to publish Debian
packages into on of your repositories.
As far as I understand the case, the issue lies into the gap between two build
and pack
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Stefane Fermigier wrote:
> So I guess in this case the root of all evil (like often in the Java world)
> comes from Maven...
I think the main problem is the "easy" management of versioned
depencencies. Software that allow the easy coexistence of a multitude
of v
Hi,
Am 07.02.2011 09:42, schrieb Stefane Fermigier:
> So I guess in this case the root of all evil (like often in the Java world)
> comes from Maven...
primarily from the (central) Maven repository which is not well
maintained. The software Maven is not evil but it has some issues, too.
Cheers,
On Feb 7, 2011, at 9:10 AM, Thomas Koch wrote:
> Stefane Fermigier:
>> On Feb 6, 2011, at 10:29 PM, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
>>> JARs in a source package. We absolutely need every single package
>>> compiled from source, and that includes their dependencies. That's why
>>> packaging Java applicati
Stefane Fermigier:
> On Feb 6, 2011, at 10:29 PM, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
> > JARs in a source package. We absolutely need every single package
> > compiled from source, and that includes their dependencies. That's why
> > packaging Java applications for Debian is so much of a pain ;-)...
> > More
On Feb 6, 2011, at 10:29 PM, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
>>> Here are the main objection that have been raised (by some Ubuntu guys)
>>> about the way we are making our packages:
>>>
>>> 1. "It looks like they're bundling their own Tomcat. W
On Feb 6, 2011, at 10:15 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 2011-02-06 20:24, Stefane Fermigier wrote:
>> We are fully aware that our packages are not built in a way similar to the
>> way a Linux package is usually built (i.e.: ./configure ; make
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> Here are the main objection that have been raised (by some Ubuntu guys)
>> about the way we are making our packages:
>>
>> 1. "It looks like they're bundling their own Tomcat. We haven't allowed
>> this in the past. Ask that they use our
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2011-02-06 20:24, Stefane Fermigier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm new to this list, and I've joined specifically in the hope of finding a
> way to work with you guys in order to get our open source ECM software (Nuxeo
> CAP, DM, DAM, etc.), which are Ja
40 matches
Mail list logo
