Paul Wise <[email protected]> writes: hi Paul,
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:53 AM, Felix Natter wrote: > >> Freeplane (a package in pkg-java) uses a swf file for browsing exported >> mindmaps. Now I need to distribute the source (see #736106), so I plan >> to put it in a separate package "freeplane-flash-browser". > > Personally I would just delete the SWF file from the source package > and be done with it. I think Debian should encourage our upstreams to > drop the Flash platform and replace their use of it with standard web > stuff (HTML5, CSS, JS), at least that has some chance of having > DFSG-free client support. That's a good point. I will ask how important flash export is for upstream and then maybe include it in 1.3.x. > >> - is it ok to install the swf file here: >> /usr/share/freeplane-flash-browser/visorFreeplane.swf >> and then add a symlink >> /usr/share/freeplane/resources/flash/visorFreeplane.swf -> >> /usr/share/freeplane-flash-browser/visorFreeplane.swf >> in the Freeplane package so that the resource can be found? > > That should be fine as long as the path doesn't change. > >> - can I maintain the package in pkg-java? If not, where shall I put it? > > Best ask that on the debian-java list. If they don't accept you could > maintain it on your own and if you want a git repo, use collab-maint. Ok. >> - There are no upstream releases of freeplane-flash-browser, it is >> maintained in a git repo (along with some other programs): >> https://github.com/freeplane/misc/tree/master/flash-browser >> >> Is it ok to use a shell script that extracts the flash-browser/source >> directory (from git clone output) and creates an upstream tarball from >> it? Can I make up a version number? > > Yes. If other parts of the same repository are useful you might want > to create a freeplane-misc source package building multiple binary > packages. Normally the version number should be based on the output of > `git describe`. I note there is actually one date-based tag available > but perhaps you should ask upstream to give it a proper version > number. So maybe version it like 0~20131212 (where the date is the > date of the latest commit when you create the tarball). > > https://github.com/freeplane/misc/tags Thanks for the explanation :-) >> - #736106 is an RC bug. Is it ok to keep freeplane 1.2.23-2 as is, and >> fix it in the coming 1.3.x version (<< November, probably in 1-2 >> months)? > > I expect the release team will automatically remove freeplane from > testing before then, which might not be desirable. I would suggest > repacking it now to remove the SWF and worry about the rest later. I guess it is ok to simply do the repacking/reimporting with "gbp import-orig --filter ..."? What would the version number be: 1.2.23+dfsg1-1 or 1.2.23+dfsg1-3 (current version number is 1.2.23-2)? I guess 1.2.23+dfsg1-1 is ok since: dpkg --compare-versions 1.2.23-2 lt 1.2.23+dfsg1-1 && echo yep succeeds? Thanks and Best Regards, -- Felix Natter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
