On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 18:14 +0100, Raúl Sánchez Siles wrote:
>  Hi:
> 
> El Jueves, 20 de diciembre de 2012, Philip Van Hoof escribió:
> > Hi there,

>   Thanks for the patch. It's not looking bad but I still hadn't the time to 
> review it thouroughly. I wouldn't call it 2.5.92 version though, since it's a 
> master snapshot. There's already a 2.5.92 version which is actually 2.6rc1.

Ok. 

>   By the way, there's already an experimental branch[0] on the packaging 
> repository targeted towards 2.6. It already coped for 2.5.91 version, and I 
> had 
> locally some more commits towards 2.5.92 which I've just pushed now, sorry 
> for 
> not making them available before.

Aha yes. I looked quickly to all the available branches but none of them
where for my needs recent enough. In particular has Part.h been added to
the installed headers of calligrasheets' library quite recently. My
software needs that commit.
 
> > I started this work because I need a very recent version of calligra and
> > more specifically calligra-dev for one of my customer's development
> > needs. As we want to use FAI the idea is to do everything in Debian
> > packaging. And then why not also post the changes to upstream Debian? So
> > here you go.
 
>   To be honest I'm not fond of working with such a moving target as calligra 
> upstream master. I was once discouraged about that and I now also support 
> this 
> position. master moves very fast and calligra is such a beast to build. Up to 
> now I don't know about an incremental packaging system which may be 
> considered 
> for this situation.

I agree. But perhaps it'll be useful to keep this patch around to help
migrating current experimental branch to a next milestone version of
Calligra.

>   Moreover wheezy is frozen and therefore only experimental is available for 
> packages. I thought about using experimental eventually for 2.6 since master 
> is 
> far beyond our nowadays calligra packaging aims.

Yes I don't expect this to go to wheezy. However, with Calligra upstream
planning to become a better citizen w.r.t. API stability and so-naming,
perhaps it's not a bad idea to allow some more changes to go into
wheezy. But that decision is up to you, of course.

>   So in this situation, what I could propose you is:
> 
>   · If calligra 2.6 is not ready for your purposes you could study 
> backporting 
> those master commits needed.

nod

>   · If what you need is a working calligra-dev package let us know and we can 
> work on that together. Patches are sure welcome, but I think it'd be better 
> to 
> stick to current experimental branch, ie calligra 2.6

What I need is a calligra-dev package that installs Part.h. And
installment of Part.h in sheets/part/Part.h implies a refactor that
happened quite recently. I also need that refactor.

>   This is just my opinion and packaging has also been worked by some other 
> Qt/KDE Team members which may not agree with me. Their comments are also 
> welcome.

ok fair enough.

Kind regards,

Philip

-- 
Philip Van Hoof
Freelance software developer
Codeminded BVBA - http://codeminded.be


-- 
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk

Reply via email to