Hi David, On 04/03/2018 05:08, David Herrmann wrote: > *) The dbus-broker project uses submodules to link some code > statically. The easiest way to build dbus-broker is using our .tar.xz > tarballs provided with each release [1]. These include *all* source > files, including the right submodule versions. If you want to build > from -git directly, though, I recommend the strategy used by the > arch-linux -git package [2]. They check out all required repositories > and then use git to check out the correct revisions. This is > definitely more flexible than the tarball based approach, but also > needs slightly more maintenance, as you need to stay up-to-date with > the submodules.
Debian tooling handles the submodules fine, I just compared the released tarball for v11 with the one generated by the Debian tooling from the git repository and they are substantially identical. However, I noticed that not all the submodules have the same license as dbus-broker, I need to complete the debian/copyright file. Also, I noticed that Red Hat is listed as the copyright holder. Is that true for all contributions? > *) The dbus-broker binary itself is definitely intended to be useful > on its own. However, no such users are known, and so far we have *not* > stabilized its API, yet. Hence, I would not split it apart now, but > leave it for a future extension. That is, something like a > `dbus-broker-core` package, which just contains the broker, but not > the launcher. I think that having `dbus-broker` and `dbus-broker-launcher` packages would be more logical, but I don't see reasons why the split cannot happen when the need will emerge, or when the API will be stable. > *) We are reworking the Fedora package at the moment. I cannot say how > the ultimate solution will look like, but the plan right now is this: > dbus-daemon is split into multiple packages. One packages > (dbus-daemon-utils) provides all the utilities (dbus-send, > dbus-monitor, ...). I would call this `dbus-utils`, but.. bikeshedding. > Another package (dbus-daemon) provides the daemon > binary and its related tools (dbus-daemon, dbus-launch, ...), as well > as a renamed service file `dbus-daemon.service`. > For dbus-broker we provide one package that ships the broker+launcher, > as well as the dbus-broker.service unit file. > Lastly, we intend to recreate the `dbus` package as a simple package > that both dbus-daemon and dbus-broker depend on, and it provides the > daemon-xml files (config and policy). If there is interest for dbus-broker in Debian and the dbus maintainers agree, I can work on patches to do the same for the Debian's dbus package. > Depending on what the default setup for your system should be, you > should run `systemctl enable dbus-{daemon,broker}.service`. They will > then create the dbus.service symlink. Fedora intends to use the > systemd-presets for this. That would need to be done differently on Debian, I guess. I will need to do some reading about what the correct solution would be there. > I hope this information is of help to you! Thank you for the detailed reply, it surely helps. Cheers, Dan _______________________________________________ Pkg-utopia-maintainers mailing list Pkg-utopia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-utopia-maintainers