Hello. I would like some advices about... Xmlada produces 5 libraries: xmlada_$module for $module in dom, input_sources, unicode, sax and schema. This makes sense, because SAX users may not want to [load in memory|statically embed] the DOM part, or may want to use the unicode module only. Former Debian packages were skipping the unconfigurable upstream build system, and generating one monolithic library. I see 3 directions: 1 Go on this way. Diverging has many costs, and is not motivated anymore because the upstream build system has improved a lot. 2 Generate 3*5 binary packages (lib, -dev and -dbg) instead of 3*1, plus a libxmlada-dev compatibility package providing xmlada-config and xmlada.gpr. Normal users would not be affected. 3 Generate 3 binary packages containing five libraries. Many Debian packages do that (libncurses-dev for example), but this would break the Debian Ada policy. I vote in favor of 2, as implemented in the debian/split.diff file in latest revision of the org.debian.libxmlada monotone branch.
Aws and templates-parser upstream development histories are now published in a public web-browsable git repository. Template-parser is a git submodule of aws, meaning that its repository may be cloned separately, but by default contains tricks in .git/ telling that it is intended as a subdirectory of the aws git repository. Releases are tagged (for example, it seems that the 11.8.0 release is tagged 11.8 (not 11.8.0)). I hardly see the benefit anymore of duplicating the whole history in a monotone database, and suggest that we generate .orig tarballs from that repository. In case this suggestion is rejected, I would like someone used to tailor to propagate the changes until 11.8.0 to the monotone database. both, and probably other adacore packages Every source header now mentions GPL-3+ with GCC runtime exception. Upstream insists on sources available in libre.adacore.com or public git repositories being relicensed under the pure GPL. I believe that it does not make any practical difference anymore for Debian. If so, we should stop using a separate branch (say, com.adacore.xmlada.debian) removing the GNAT runtime exception from the branch tracking upstream revisions (say, com.adacore.xmlada). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140302224708.GA7908@pegase
