On 12/4/18 10:39 PM, Jiri Vlasak wrote:
> I would like to announce the LiveJOSM [1] project. It's not much, just
> Debian Live [2] with JOSM preinstalled (+ some plugins).
Why not install the josm package from the backports repository?
No need for the icon hack then.
Kind Regards,
Bas
--
> $ svn propget ReleaseVersion
> https://svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/viewer/jmapviewer
> 2.7
Since JOSM is still very focused on SVN, I guess there are no plans to
move it and JMapViewer to GitHub where we could use the tarballs from
the release tags?
> Le sam. 18 août 2018 à 1
s to the version directories changed from:
2.0/
To:
> Le sam. 18 août 2018 à 12:16, Sebastiaan Couwenberg a
> écrit :
>
>> With the deprecation of svn.openstreetmap.org, the JMapViewer release
>> page [0] is no longer available.
>>
>> The banner at
With the deprecation of svn.openstreetmap.org, the JMapViewer release
page [0] is no longer available.
The banner at the top refers to the OpenStreetMap organisation on
GitHub, but there is no jmapviewer project there.
Are there plans to move jmapviewer to GitHub, or if not, can the release
Hi Simon,
Thanks for the feedback.
On 09/22/2016 11:10 PM, Simon Legner wrote:
> the proposed change makes sense. I'm happy to commit it once a JOSM
> ticket has been created (for reference). Note that you can also use
> `CachedFile#getContentReader` to obtain a `BufferedReader`.
I've forwarded
Today an issue was reported for the josm Debian package about the Help
menu option causing an exception. [0] This turned out to be caused by
help-browser.css being moved out of the jar for the Debian package.
Most code uses the CachedFile class to access embedded resources in jar,
and I wonder if
On 31-10-15 15:08, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> On 31-10-15 14:11, Vincent Privat wrote:
>> I have a few other remarks on the Debian package.
>> The package still depends on libandroid-json-org-java and
>> libcommons-codec-java, they should be dropped:
>>
>> -
On 31-10-15 01:52, Vincent Privat wrote:
> I see https://packages.debian.org/sid/josm depends on jmapviewer 1.11 and
> not 1.12, is it OK?
It works with both, so no need to require the latest version.
JMapViewer 1.12 was a bugfix release, the API didn't change.
That's quite fortunate so we
On 31-10-15 14:11, Vincent Privat wrote:
> I have a few other remarks on the Debian package.
> The package still depends on libandroid-json-org-java and
> libcommons-codec-java, they should be dropped:
>
> - org.json was dropped in 6756, see
> https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/9590
> - Apache
On 30-10-15 12:22, Vincent Privat wrote:
> Done!
Thanks!
The updated Debian packages will be available later today.
Kind Regards,
Bas
--
GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1
Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1
___
With the new tested snapshot for JOSM I also expected the JMapViewer
1.12 release with wiktorns recent tile chache changes.
I see that there is no JMapViewer 1.12 release yet, can we expect that soon?
Kind Regards,
Bas
--
GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1
Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D
On 11-10-15 13:31, Dirk Stöcker wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2015, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>
>> On 10-10-15 00:01, Dirk Stöcker wrote:
>>> On Fri, 9 Oct 2015, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>>>
>>>>> No. As you mark it as Debian in the agent i
On 10-10-15 00:01, Dirk Stöcker wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2015, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>
>>> No. As you mark it as Debian in the agent it's correct to strip the SVN
>>> text. This patch as far as I remember was designed in cooperation with
>>> me. For SVN w
Is the source for the JOSM Version check, the VersionTest macro used in
StartupPageSource wiki, available somewhere?
It currently is unable to handle the version used for the Debian package
which is reported as a strange version:
'8159 Debian nl) Linux Debian GNU/Linux unstable (sid'
This was
On 09-10-15 17:39, Dirk Stöcker wrote:
>> Works now? Please check that it checks against tested and does not
>> tell to update unless there's really a newer one. SVN version already
>> tell you to update when a new latest is there.
>
> Need to correct me. For SVN it only tells you to update when
On 09-10-15 21:27, Dirk Stöcker wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2015, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the quick fixes, the Startup page now reports:
>>
>> * Active version '8159 Debian' should be updated! The current stable
>> snapshot is 8800 and 8840 is th
On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
Do you understand the point of view of a distribution like Debian?
It's clear that you don't share Debians concerns for software freedom
and
focus on quality. And you're not alone in that, that's why it's always
Debian people that bring up
On Thu, 18 Jun 2015, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
I'm not aware of any other distribution, which tries to tell developers
that
they should not use another some open source code with valid license or
implement workarounds so that packagers are happy. I've never done this
or
heard of this
On 06/18/2015 03:57 PM, Dirk Stöcker wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2015, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
No. The request is that we do not use it or make it optional.
I only asked if it was possible to make it optional, to quote my initial
email:
...
Thanks for continuously misrepresenting my words
On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Vincent Privat wrote:
We understand the problem but I don't know if keeping the old cache is
easy
nor feasible. Wiktor what do you think? Is the old code still there or
has
it been dropped during the switch ?
Actually I DO NOT see the problem.
Debian requires
I can try to have a look but I never packaged something on Debian before.
Is there a Debian packaging for dummies somewhere? :)
The Debian New Maintainers' Guide is the official resource for people new
to Debian packaging:
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/
For the Debian GIS
On 06/17/2015 09:28 AM, Wiktor Niesiobedzki wrote:
I don't quite understand what's your goal. All dependencies are
included in josm*.jar. Do you intend to create your own *jar for
distribution without dependencies and use separate packages to provide
them?
For software to be included in
But when you download the source code from our repository, you will get
all the dependencies. Ant build will create a jar that will contain all
necessary dependencies within. What's wrong with such approach?
Bundling dependencies is not a good thing. Take JMapViewer for example, we
build this
We understand the problem but I don't know if keeping the old cache is
easy
nor feasible. Wiktor what do you think? Is the old code still there or has
it been dropped during the switch ?
Even if it's possible, it might lead to Debian specific bugs...
I'm afraid keeping the old caching as an
On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
I wish it was that simple. While the Debian Policy does not explicitly
require splitting out embedded dependencies, it's a very common
packaging
best practice.
A recommendation is still no requirement.
Debian does recommend upstream
Would it be possible to make JCS an optional dependency and use the
previous caching mechanism if it's not available?
This would make it easier to package current JOSM tested snapshots (and
backports for these) until JCS is more widely available in distributions
(JCS 2.0 is still at beta1). There
Hi all,
The Debian package for JOSM 8109 fails to build because it uses
TemplatedTMSTileSource() introduced in jmapviewer r30933.
Are you planning a JMapViewer 1.06 release to accompany JOSM 8109?
Kind Regards,
Bas
--
GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1
Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146
27 matches
Mail list logo
