[josm-dev] New JMapViewer release for JOSM 8109
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 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] New JMapViewer release for JOSM 8109
Hi Vincent, On 03/05/2015 12:09 AM, Vincent Privat wrote: > Thanks for reporting it, I totally forgot this change. > JMapViewer 1.06 is out :) Thanks for the new release. I've packaged it over breakfast in favor of my patched build from last night. Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
[josm-dev] JCS as optional dependency
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 are still several missing pieces to get JCS packaged in Debian for example. Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] JCS as optional dependency
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 Debian the software itself and all its dependencies need to be built from source, because Debian cares deeply about its commitment to Free Software. Just shipping JARs is not acceptable because .class files are not source. While shipping binaries is the norm in the Java world, this is incompatible with the Free Software principle of allowing users to modify the software they receive. That requires the software in its preferred form for modification (source code). I'm not happy with the switch to JCS. The 2.0 branch is still in beta and doesn't look very mature yet. Its requirement to build JOSM has prevented me from keeping the josm Debian package in sync with the latest tested snapsnots. Having the previous caching mechanism available too would allow us to keep using that until JCS 2.0 matures and has packaging available. Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] JCS as optional dependency
> 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 separately in Debian because it's also used by Freeplane. If both josm & freeplane were to bundle the dependency we need to apply updates and bugfixes to both copies instead of just the component itself. There will be other software that will use JCS in once that's packaged in Debian, bundling JCS in JOSM prevents these other projects from benefiting from the JCS build. Kind Regards, Bas ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] JCS as optional dependency
> 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 alternative is not an option, that's why I didn't raise the issue before. If it is possible, this would remove the barrier preventing josm updates in Debian though. > Couldn't we help you to package JCS on Debian instead? Yes that's possible and very much appreciated. Have a look at the JCS Request For Package bug where I've recorded my progress. https://bugs.debian.org/783538 There are too few contributors to the Debian GIS team to allow me to dedicate sufficient time to packaging JCS and maintaining it in the long term. All my time is currently consumed preparing transitions for GDAL & SpatiaLite, reviewing and sponsoring uploads for others, and mentoring a new contributor. The Debian Java team is likewise understaffed, so I can't blame them for the lack of help with packaging JCS. Everyone has enough on their plate with the packages we maintain already to not jump at the request for a new package they don't need themselves. Kind Regards, Bas ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] JCS as optional dependency
> 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 team we also have the team policy documenting best practices: http://pkg-grass.alioth.debian.org/policy/index.html#introduction The Debian Java team, under whose umbrella the JCS package and dependencies are most appropriate, also has some minimal documentation on the wiki: https://wiki.debian.org/Java/Packaging Unfortunately the debian-maven-helper tool is not documented very well, and this is the tool you'll most likely use to package Apache Commons projects. There is only an example: https://wiki.debian.org/Java/MavenDebianHelper Kind Regards, Bas ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] JCS as optional dependency
> 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 building from source which is true for most other > distributions as well. That's fine. > > Debian does nowhere require that a software needs to be split into > multiple pieces. That may have some advantages but also has a series of > disadvantages. And if nobody has time to do it, then simply don't do it! 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. Debian does recommend upstream developers to not include 3rd party code, see: https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide#No_inclusion_of_third_party_code While it's phrased mostly for C/C++ shared libraries, it applies to Java projects just the same. > JCS is now an integral part of JOSM. As it is also a library it could be > provided by another package. But that's not required and also can be > changed at any time in the future. > > Altogether I never understood the way Debian packages JOSM and from user > side it's complicated, error prone and also wastes space on harddisk. To > fulfill Debian guidelines building a jar from source would be perfectly > fine like you build binaries for other tools. > > So Debian packages do a lot of actually unnecessary work and need constant > adaption to changing source code. But that's the choice of package > maintainers and no requirement. This attitude makes me want to remove the josm package from Debian again. Last time this caused a number of users of the josm package in Debian to object, instead of pushing for the removal of the package I started to co-maintain the package. That went surprisingly well until recently, mostly thanks to Vincent who's been a superb upstream to work with. Kind Regards, Bas ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] JCS as optional dependency
> 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 developers to not include 3rd party code, >> see: > > While there are common practices to make software packaging friendly, it > is strange when a distribution tries the explain developers how they > should develop their software. Especially as Debian does not follow common > guidelines itself. Do you have concrete examples or are your just spreading FUD? >>> So Debian packages do a lot of actually unnecessary work and need >>> constant >>> adaption to changing source code. But that's the choice of package >>> maintainers and no requirement. >> >> This attitude makes me want to remove the josm package from Debian >> again. >> >> Last time this caused a number of users of the josm package in Debian to >> object, instead of pushing for the removal of the package I started to >> co-maintain the package. That went surprisingly well until recently, >> mostly thanks to Vincent who's been a superb upstream to work with. > > Because Vincent is a nice guy and tries to make everybody happy. And > probably also because he does not know the whole history. > > But if I look at the history, then from all the possible Linux > distributions out there packaging JOSM only Debian is coming permanently > to request that we change it here and there and do that and this. And > because of self-applied restriction which aren't even required. 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 those issues, the rest of the Open Source community doesn't care enough. > And together with that requests from our side have simply been ignored > many times. E.g. the debian build is still not marked in a way, that we > could see them in our stats. Recomendation still is to add "DEBIAN" or > "D" in the version string like "SVN" for the self-builds. I'm happy to make such a change, but this request is unknown to me. The previous maintainer is unable to maintain his many packages, it's quite likely he's the only one who was asked this. Do you care enough about this issue to file a bug report so that it doesn't get lost again (e.g. when I give up on josm packaging out of sheer frustration)? Refer to the documentation how to file a bug using the reportbug utilty or plain email: https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting Kind Regards, Bas ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] JCS as optional dependency
> 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 those issues, the rest of the Open Source
>> community doesn't care enough.
>
> We did major efforts to clear the license situation of JOSM some time ago
> and also did other requested changes. But what you request has NOTHING to
> do with the Debian ideals. You can simply request code changes and when
> your get told that this is nonsense answer with "well, but you don't care
> for Debian ideals".
The license changes were and are still much appreciated, by myself and the
wider Free Software community. But that's not the topic of discussion,
that's the new JCS requirement.
>> Do you care enough about this issue to file a bug report so that it
>> doesn't get lost again (e.g. when I give up on josm packaging out of
>> sheer
>> frustration)?
>>
>> Refer to the documentation how to file a bug using the reportbug utilty
>> or
>> plain email:
>
> You already know it, so why file a report and then I remember that I tried
> once and then gave up, so I don't try that again.
Because you cannot be bothered I did you a favor and filed the bug report:
https://bugs.debian.org/789161
We already patch the build.xml to append the following to the REVISION file:
Debian-Release: ${debian.version}
We also patch Version.java & AboutAction.java to use this value in the
About box.
Based on the comments in build.xml we should also add the following to
have the value used for the stats identification:
Build-Name: Debian
I've updated the patch to implement the above, and it will be included in
the next upload to unstable. It will then finds its way into the next
Debian and Ubuntu releases.
Kind Regards,
Bas
___
josm-dev mailing list
josm-dev@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] JCS as optional dependency
> 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 for openSUSE and I created and maintain a lot of packages >>> there. >> >> The "problem" isn't using another software/code/lib/etc, but using a >> local or embedded copy. > > 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: " 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). " Thanks for continuously misrepresenting my words. Kind Regards, Bas ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] JCS as optional dependency
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. > > Do we speak different languages? Apparently we do. So it's no use to continue this discussion with you. Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
[josm-dev] JOSM Version check source (VersionTest macro) to troubleshoot strange version
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 triggered by the addition of the Build-Name property to better identify the Debian builds. I suspect that the VersionTest regex doesn't support the use of the Build-Name property. Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] JOSM Version check source (VersionTest macro) to troubleshoot strange version
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 you are > least 50 versions behind. So it can't be tested ATM, as tested to latest > diff is only 40. 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 the unstable development version. This is for http.agent: 'JOSM/1.5 (8159 Debian en) Linux Debian GNU/Linux unstable (sid)' The Debian package carries a very old patch [0] that strips the addition of the SVN substring for local builds to fix Debian Bug #598920 [1]. We may need to consider dropping that patch now. What are your thoughts about that? [0] http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-grass/josm.git/tree/debian/patches/05-fix_version.patch [1] https://bugs.debian.org/598920 Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] JOSM Version check source (VersionTest macro) to troubleshoot strange version
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 the unstable development version. > > Well yes, that will remain a Debian problem. Will you ever get a version > where the Wiki will not ask for an update with our monthly cycle :-) We still don't have JCS packaged for Debian, but thanks to Emmanuel Bourg there is some progress on this front with the upload of the jcache spec. I'm currently working on updating the JOSM package to 8800 using the embedded JCS and newer metadata-extractor version. >> The Debian package carries a very old patch [0] that strips the addition >> of the SVN substring for local builds to fix Debian Bug #598920 [1]. We >> may need to consider dropping that patch now. >> >> What are your thoughts about that? > > 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 we react different in tickets - We tell the user first to > update to recent SVN version assuming the user can build the software > himself. This is not the correct reply for Debian version, so the SVN > should not be there. Simply change the patch to set "Debian" instead of > "SVN", as I see that there is no patch in the GIT yet for this purpose. Based on the bug report and your changes to the VersionTest macro, it seemed the patch may have been unneeded in the first place. I prefer the User-Agent without SVN substring anyway, so I'll happily keep it for the Debian package. The Debian Build-Name change is currently only available in the 00-build.patch on the stretch branch: https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-grass/josm.git/tree/debian/patches/00-build.patch?h=stretch#n57 These changes are also in my local master branch that I'll push to the git repository on Alioth soon after finishing the changes for JOSM 8800. > But you can drop "08-disable_gettext-merge.patch". That speed issue has > been fixed some time ago. That patch has also been disabled some time ago, as part of the changes for JOSM 8800 these old disabled patches are now removed entirely, not just disabled in the series file. Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] JOSM Version check source (VersionTest macro) to troubleshoot strange version
On 10-10-15 16:04, Vincent Privat wrote: > Speaking of Debian patches, I think you should also remove the "macosx" > folder, like what is done for the "windows" folder. I had considered that too when I reviewed the repacking rules in the get-orig-source target, but decided not to bother for ~300 kB. The binary JOSM.icns is not very usefull, so I've updated the get-orig-source target to drop the macosx directory too for the next upload. > You may also remove from build.xml the following targets: mac, distmac, > distwin These targets aren't called or depended upon, so there is no problem keeping them. I prefer to keep the patches to only contain modifications required for the Debian package build, removing the mac & windows targets adds too much irrelevant bloat to the 00-build.patch. > You can also remove xmltask.jar from tools directory (it is only used to > build the OSX package) The get-orig-source target already takes care of that, it removes all jars included in the source tree. Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] JOSM Version check source (VersionTest macro) to troubleshoot strange version
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 we react different in tickets - We tell the user first to >>> update to recent SVN version assuming the user can build the software >>> himself. This is not the correct reply for Debian version, so the SVN >>> should not be there. Simply change the patch to set "Debian" instead of >>> "SVN", as I see that there is no patch in the GIT yet for this purpose. >> >> Based on the bug report and your changes to the VersionTest macro, it >> seemed the patch may have been unneeded in the first place. >> >> I prefer the User-Agent without SVN substring anyway, so I'll happily >> keep it for the Debian package. >> >> The Debian Build-Name change is currently only available in the >> 00-build.patch on the stretch branch: >> >> https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-grass/josm.git/tree/debian/patches/00-build.patch?h=stretch#n57 >> > > Hmm, maybe these two together need some rework. If you simply change > Is-Local-Build (above the Build-Name) to false the patch to Version.java > can be dropped and manifest is more correct. Settings Is-Local-Build to false goes against the guidelines from the 'How to create a build' documentation [0]. The Debian package is not an "official" release provided by josm.openstreetmap.de for which Is-Local-Build: true is appropriate. If the motivation for this change is to not need the Version.java change, I don't think that's appropriate. I prefer keeping Version.java change and correctly identifying the Debian package builds as a custom build not provided by josm.openstreetmap.de. [0] https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/DevelopersGuide/CreateBuild#TheREVISIONfile > Removing SVN from the other line in build.xml is probably still required > (we don't use build.xml but a makefile on the server). But I'd include > that single change in your 00-build.patch for better readability. The patches have different origins and authors, that's why I prefer to keep them separate. I've also considered merging all build.xml changes in 00-build.patch, but so far prefer to keep the separate patches. Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] JOSM Version check source (VersionTest macro) to troubleshoot strange version
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 it's correct to strip the >>>>> SVN >>>>> text. This patch as far as I remember was designed in cooperation with >>>>> me. For SVN we react different in tickets - We tell the user first to >>>>> update to recent SVN version assuming the user can build the software >>>>> himself. This is not the correct reply for Debian version, so the SVN >>>>> should not be there. Simply change the patch to set "Debian" >>>>> instead of >>>>> "SVN", as I see that there is no patch in the GIT yet for this >>>>> purpose. >>>> >>>> Based on the bug report and your changes to the VersionTest macro, it >>>> seemed the patch may have been unneeded in the first place. >>>> >>>> I prefer the User-Agent without SVN substring anyway, so I'll happily >>>> keep it for the Debian package. >>>> >>>> The Debian Build-Name change is currently only available in the >>>> 00-build.patch on the stretch branch: >>>> >>>> https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-grass/josm.git/tree/debian/patches/00-build.patch?h=stretch#n57 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Hmm, maybe these two together need some rework. If you simply change >>> Is-Local-Build (above the Build-Name) to false the patch to Version.java >>> can be dropped and manifest is more correct. >> >> Settings Is-Local-Build to false goes against the guidelines from the >> 'How to create a build' documentation [0]. >> >> The Debian package is not an "official" release provided by >> josm.openstreetmap.de for which Is-Local-Build: true is appropriate. > > I added " or another approved organization" there, so it's appropriate > now :-) Alright, the Debian package has been updated accordingly. :-) It will be included in the next upload, that should be next weekend to give the freeplane maintainer a little time to look into supporting JMapViewer 1.11 in the freeplane openmaps plugin. >> If the motivation for this change is to not need the Version.java >> change, I don't think that's appropriate. I prefer keeping Version.java >> change and correctly identifying the Debian package builds as a custom >> build not provided by josm.openstreetmap.de. > > Local build really means user local builds. That's not true for Debian. > As we discussed and agreed on a proper marking of the Debian version > setting this to false is better. All these settings are only there to > allow us proper support reaction for requests. Shouldn't the Main-Version in the MANIFEST.MF now also include Debian instead of SVN? Or should we just keep stripping the SVN string? Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
[josm-dev] JMapViewer 1.12 release to accompany JOSM 8964?
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 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] JMapViewer 1.12 release to accompany JOSM 8964?
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 ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] JMapViewer 1.12 release to accompany JOSM 8964?
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 didn't need to bother the freeplane maintainer for another compatibility fix. Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] JMapViewer 1.12 release to accompany JOSM 8964?
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 Commons Codec was dropped in 8149, see > https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/11257 > > commons-codec.jar must also be removed from 00-build.patch Thanks, fixed in josm (0.0.svn8969+dfsg-2). Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] JMapViewer 1.12 release to accompany JOSM 8964?
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: >> >> - org.json was dropped in 6756, see >> https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/9590 >> - Apache Commons Codec was dropped in 8149, see >> https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/11257 >> >> commons-codec.jar must also be removed from 00-build.patch > > Thanks, fixed in josm (0.0.svn8969+dfsg-2). Removing commons-codec.jar from the Class-Path seems to have broken the OAuth support as reported in Debian Bug #804072 (https://bugs.debian.org/804072). How do the tested & latest builds handle these dependencies? Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Using CachedFile class for /data/help-browser.css in HelpBrowser class
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 the HelpBrowser shouldn't do so too. This would simplify the patch included in the Debian package, and increase consistency in the JOSM code. If there is interest for the above I'll forward the relevant changes [1] for JOSM trunk in a Trac ticket. [0] https://bugs.debian.org/838247 [1] https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-grass/josm.git/tree/debian/patches/06-move_data_out_of_jar.patch#n70 Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: Using CachedFile class for /data/help-browser.css in HelpBrowser class
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 the changes as included in the Debian package in: https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/13687 It doesn't use getContentReader() though. Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
JMapViewer release downloads no longer available
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 download page be restored? [0] https://svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/viewer/jmapviewer/releases/ Kind Regards, Bas
Re: JMapViewer release downloads no longer available
On 08/18/2018 03:20 PM, Vincent Privat wrote: > What do you mean by "not available"? The page is displayed and we can > download releases from there. IIRC there was an index page which contained the links to all the releases. This was used by uscan(1) in the Debian package to check for new upstream releases. This doesn't work any more: $ uscan --report uscan warn: In debian/watch, no matching hrefs for pattern https://svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/viewer/jmapviewer/releases/(\d+(?:\.\d+)*) at /usr/bin/uscan line 4307, line 3. Looking at the page HTML the links 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 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 >> download page be restored? >> >> [0] https://svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/viewer/jmapviewer/releases/
Re: JMapViewer release downloads no longer available
On 08/18/2018 04:25 PM, Vincent Privat wrote: > OK. This is not linked to JMapViewer itself but likely caused by a software > upgrade or a change of configuration on OSM SVN server. SVN is still at 1.8.8, so it's most likely caused by the webserver configuration to add the banner. > Can you adapt the Debian watcher to the new links? Yes, I've added bunch of mangle rules to make it work again, see: https://salsa.debian.org/debian-gis-team/jmapviewer/commit/527e494d2edd51dac1fe89f21c83aab50c8460cc > It's also possible to get the latest version with this SVN command: > > $ 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 15:35, Sebastiaan Couwenberg a > écrit : > >> On 08/18/2018 03:20 PM, Vincent Privat wrote: >>> What do you mean by "not available"? The page is displayed and we can >>> download releases from there. >> >> IIRC there was an index page which contained the links to all the releases. >> >> This was used by uscan(1) in the Debian package to check for new >> upstream releases. This doesn't work any more: >> >> $ uscan --report >> uscan warn: In debian/watch, >> no matching hrefs for pattern >> >> >> https://svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/viewer/jmapviewer/releases/(\d+(? >> <https://svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/viewer/jmapviewer/releases/(%5Cd+(?> >> :\.\d+)*) >> at /usr/bin/uscan line 4307, line 3. >> >> Looking at the page HTML the links 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 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 >>>> download page be restored? >>>> >>>> [0] https://svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/viewer/jmapviewer/releases/ Kind Regards, Bas
Re: LiveJOSM project
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 -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1
