[Neurodebian-devel] OpenVibe Debian package

Nicolas Bourdaud nicolas.bourdaud at gmail.com
Mon Jun 25 21:20:10 UTC 2012


Hello Yann,

	Sorry for not having given news earlier but I had a lot of work to do
lately (PhD defense, packages to fix for the next Debian release...).
But now I should have more time to dedicate to the OpenVibe package.

	So as you might have seen, I made an initial package few weeks ago. I
had to work from a fresh start because the build system had to be
modified a bit to fit the expectation of the debian build scripts.


Now I have several questions to go ahead. Feel free to invite into this
email exchange anyone you feel that must be put into the loop:


_Copyright and license_:

	I have prepared a debian/copyright (attached) file with the information
I have gathered from the latest release and from the website. Is it
correct? What are the date of copyright I should specify (years of
modification)? Also I doubt that everyone in the list has contributed in
all files of the source code. So it could be nice to know who has
contributed to what. Or maybe all the copyrights belong to the IRISA (or
INRIA)... I don't know since there is no copyright header in the files.
Maybe you can tell me what should be indicated here.

	Moreover, I have set Laurent Bonnet as the upstream contact since he is
the one noted as contact in the website. Should I use your contact
information instead?

	I indicated the LGPL-2.1 for all the files in the upstream package, am
I right or are there some files that should not be under LGPL-2.1?


_Separation between plugin and core_:
	
	I would like to be sure about what is meant to be plugin and what is
meant to be linked directly as shared library: the "modules" part are
dlopened but they are nevertheless linked altogether. On the other side
the "plugin" part of the code are dlopened as expected but they depends
(linked against) on libOpenViBE-dynamic.so,
libOpenViBE-toolkit-dynamic.so and various modules and use directly or
indirectly almost all the headers files defined by the core.

	So could you indicate what should be considered as plugin, shared
library or what should be integrated into the core binary.
From your answer will depends how the packages will be separated.
Don't hesitate to ask me to clarify my question if not clear.

	Also it should be noted that if a part is build as shared library, the
future releases of OpenVibe must be careful with their ABI changes:
either its ABI is made backward compatible or its soname is changed.


_Plugin installation_:
	
	For the moment, the plugin are installed and searched in $libdir
(/usr/lib/<arch>). Once it has been decided what should be a plugin, I
will write a patch to install them in $libdir/openvibe.
But it would be even better this is done directly in OpenVibe source code.


_VPRN_:

	For the moment, I have not packaged VRPN yet: it builds static
libraries. So, in its current state, it might be difficult to be
accepted in Debian repository. Don't worry, if it is an important
dependency, I will eventually package it. But could you precise its
importance for OpenVibe?


_Changes worth to be considered in midterm_:
	
	The build system is quite difficult to use and quite inflexible (and
slow). The reason is that it is made of lot of individual cmake projects
bound together by shell scripts instead of one single and modular cmake
project. For maintainability purpose of the debian package (or in order
to ease the compilation of OpenVibe by other people), it would be better
if the build system is changed to a single and modular one.

	I completely understand that the OpenVibe authors have other priority.
That is why I volunteer myself to do it. But before spending too much
time at doing it, I would like to know if you (and the other OpenVibe
authors) consider the idea interesting or you prefer to keep the build
system as it is.




	I am looking forward to reading your comments.

	Cheers,

Nicolas
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: copyright
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/neurodebian-devel/attachments/20120625/680af96c/attachment.ksh>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 900 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/neurodebian-devel/attachments/20120625/680af96c/attachment.pgp>


More information about the Neurodebian-devel mailing list