On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 12:49:40AM +0330, Mohsen Saboorian wrote: > > > Upstream package is used for all Linux/BSD distributions, so I don't > > > think this would be a good idea to remove all library dependencies. > > > This packag is targeted for end-users not Hackers :) .tar.gz upstream > > > package is a rather stand-alone package (which only depends on a > > > Mozilla as well as a JRE 1.4.2+). > > > > I thought we are dealing with source packages ? > > Keep the binary as you want but the source is targeted for hackers or advanced users ? > > There is no pure source package for upstream release. We just bundle > source code as a zipped JAR file in [zekr]/dist/zekr-src.jar. > build.xml come with each package is usually able to recompile, clean > and launch Zekr, using Apache Ant. ic. that's why. But why don't you release a source package ? ;-) > > > > 9/ Why is the package repackaged and called .dfsg? Are there non-free > > > > files in the upstream tarball? > > > > *yes there were: translations and jar libs. I removed them all.* > > > > > > Ubuntu REVUers were very strict on not bundling Pickthal and Yusufali > > > translations although they where written more than 50 years ago.... > > > > What's wrong with them ? > > We cited WikiSources, but it was not an authentic source to them: > http://revu.tauware.de/details.py?upid=6237 (seems to be currently down) They are I guess. I just wanted to know why are they objecting ? who is WikiSources ? is that where you were handling the ubuntu packaging ? > > > It has a (not-so-clever) technical reason. At the moment, it's not > > > good to remove that file from the package. If you do so, bookmarks.xml > > > (default bookmark set) is always reset at startup and all your changes > > > to that bookmark set is lost. I try to remove that file for future > > > releases, but please bear with that one for now. I think it won't harm > > > anyone ;) > > > > It looks suspicious. Nothing more IMHO. > > I didn't do anything bad in the code :) I didn't say you are doing. I said it _looks_ suspicious. Beside, I tend to trust FOSS anyway... > > I'd really like to know how can I verify that the browser support is working ? > > I'm not a java guy so I'm not familiar with the whole thing. > > I'm not sure if you successfully installed and ran this Debian > package, did you? Would you please tell me more specific what the > problem is? > If you have any of Firefox, IceApce or Mozilla from Debian > repositories (plus libgtkembedmoz.so which although exists in Ubuntu > Firefox package, but is not present in Debian IceApe), you should be > able to install the version available on mentors.debian.net. All these > dependencies should be satisfied by current depends fiels... We are now depending on libxul and I was thinking that we can drop the dependency on one of the browsers. The point is I have no way to know if the browser support is enabled or not. if I purge iceape. -- GPG-Key: 0xA3FD0DF7 - 9F73 032E EAC9 F7AD 951F 280E CB66 8E29 A3FD 0DF7 Debian User and Developer. Homepage: www.foolab.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature