[jitsi-dev] [jitsi-commits] master: Provides fixes fo several issues with the package build from debian source package. Fixes starting libjitsi. Removes missing package in bundle import due to older bouncycastle. Removes jmork dependency. Fixes missing bu


#1

Why?

Ingo

···

On 2014-09-17 21:01, damencho@jitsi.org wrote:

Repository : ssh://lists.jitsi.org/jitsi

On branch : master Link :
https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/compare/d2bbc733d7775f2fff4d812bb7852ed9578
18e b7...15fbe1a1e0a76e32b2878fc46caa2865a71ed31f

...Removes jmork dependency...


#2

This only concerns the debian packages we submit to Debian ... I think
someone expressed licensing concerns ... Damencho could you remind me?

--sent from my mobile

···

On 19 Sep 2014 8:01 PM, "Ingo Bauersachs" <ingo@jitsi.org> wrote:

On 2014-09-17 21:01, damencho@jitsi.org wrote:
> Repository : ssh://lists.jitsi.org/jitsi
>
> On branch : master Link :
>
https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/compare/d2bbc733d7775f2fff4d812bb7852ed9578
> 18e b7...15fbe1a1e0a76e32b2878fc46caa2865a71ed31f
>
> ...Removes jmork dependency...

Why?

Ingo

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@jitsi.org
Unsubscribe instructions and other list options:
http://lists.jitsi.org/mailman/listinfo/dev


#3

I know that this is deb only, but still...

Yes, Daniel had licensing concerns about combining LGPL&EPL, but he asked on Debian-Legal and as far as I interpreted the outcome of that discussion it is fine (contrary to GPL&EPL).

Freundliche Grüsse,
Ingo Bauersachs

-- sent from my mobile

···

Le 20.09.2014 à 02:50, "Emil Ivov" <emcho@jitsi.org> a écrit :

This only concerns the debian packages we submit to Debian ... I think someone expressed licensing concerns ... Damencho could you remind me?

--sent from my mobile

On 19 Sep 2014 8:01 PM, "Ingo Bauersachs" <ingo@jitsi.org> wrote:
On 2014-09-17 21:01, damencho@jitsi.org wrote:
> Repository : ssh://lists.jitsi.org/jitsi
>
> On branch : master Link :
> https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/compare/d2bbc733d7775f2fff4d812bb7852ed9578
> 18e b7...15fbe1a1e0a76e32b2878fc46caa2865a71ed31f
>
> ...Removes jmork dependency...

Why?

Ingo

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@jitsi.org
Unsubscribe instructions and other list options:
http://lists.jitsi.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@jitsi.org
Unsubscribe instructions and other list options:
http://lists.jitsi.org/mailman/listinfo/dev


#4

Daniel, would you like to comment?

--sent from my mobile

···

On 20 Sep 2014 3:06 AM, "Ingo Bauersachs" <ingo@jitsi.org> wrote:

I know that this is deb only, but still...

Yes, Daniel had licensing concerns about combining LGPL&EPL, but he asked
on Debian-Legal and as far as I interpreted the outcome of that discussion
it is fine (contrary to GPL&EPL).

Freundliche Grüsse,
Ingo Bauersachs

-- sent from my mobile

Le 20.09.2014 à 02:50, "Emil Ivov" <emcho@jitsi.org> a écrit :

This only concerns the debian packages we submit to Debian ... I think
someone expressed licensing concerns ... Damencho could you remind me?

--sent from my mobile
On 19 Sep 2014 8:01 PM, "Ingo Bauersachs" <ingo@jitsi.org> wrote:

On 2014-09-17 21:01, damencho@jitsi.org wrote:
> Repository : ssh://lists.jitsi.org/jitsi
>
> On branch : master Link :
>
https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/compare/d2bbc733d7775f2fff4d812bb7852ed9578
> 18e b7...15fbe1a1e0a76e32b2878fc46caa2865a71ed31f
>
> ...Removes jmork dependency...

Why?

Ingo

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@jitsi.org
Unsubscribe instructions and other list options:
http://lists.jitsi.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@jitsi.org
Unsubscribe instructions and other list options:
http://lists.jitsi.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@jitsi.org
Unsubscribe instructions and other list options:
http://lists.jitsi.org/mailman/listinfo/dev


#5

This is the response that came back:

https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/07/msg00002.html

It is OK to rely on the responses from the debian-legal list when
submitting something to Debian.

However, if you do have the possibility to eliminate this dependency,
make it optional or use some other dependency instead then that puts
your project in a stronger position and may also make it faster to load
the JNLP version.

···

On 20/09/14 08:15, Emil Ivov wrote:

Daniel, would you like to comment?

--sent from my mobile

On 20 Sep 2014 3:06 AM, "Ingo Bauersachs" <ingo@jitsi.org > <mailto:ingo@jitsi.org>> wrote:

    I know that this is deb only, but still...

    Yes, Daniel had licensing concerns about combining LGPL&EPL, but
    he asked on Debian-Legal and as far as I interpreted the outcome
    of that discussion it is fine (contrary to GPL&EPL).


#6

We cannot eliminate the jmork dependency and at the same time have access to Thunderbird contacts (or pointlessly creating a new Mork database reader library).
But as Damian's patch demonstrates, it's easy to rip that plugin out if need be. I just don't see the need right now, and speeding up a potential (un)official JNLP-version has nothing to do with the submitted Debian package.

I unfortunately don't get what you mean by "put in a stronger position"...?

Freundliche Grüsse,
Ingo Bauersachs

-- sent from my mobile

···

Le 20.09.2014 à 14:28, "Daniel Pocock" <daniel@pocock.com.au> a écrit :

On 20/09/14 08:15, Emil Ivov wrote:
Daniel, would you like to comment?

--sent from my mobile

On 20 Sep 2014 3:06 AM, "Ingo Bauersachs" <ingo@jitsi.org> wrote:
I know that this is deb only, but still...

Yes, Daniel had licensing concerns about combining LGPL&EPL, but he asked on Debian-Legal and as far as I interpreted the outcome of that discussion it is fine (contrary to GPL&EPL).

This is the response that came back:

https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/07/msg00002.html

It is OK to rely on the responses from the debian-legal list when submitting something to Debian.

However, if you do have the possibility to eliminate this dependency, make it optional or use some other dependency instead then that puts your project in a stronger position and may also make it faster to load the JNLP version.

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@jitsi.org
Unsubscribe instructions and other list options:
http://lists.jitsi.org/mailman/listinfo/dev


#7

Hey Daniel,

Jmork was only removed for the packages we prepare for debian submission.
It is still present in all other forms of Jitsi distribution.

If there's no licensing problem we'd rather put it back in for debian.

The need to create a lighter Jitsi package is coming back every once in a
while and while I am sympathetic to it, it is not an easy thing to do
because different people need dofferent subsets of Jitsi features and we
don't currently have the resources to maintain multiple versions (we are
struggling with the stable and nightly as it is)

--sent from my mobile

···

On 20 Sep 2014 9:21 AM, "Ingo Bauersachs" <ingo@jitsi.org> wrote:

We cannot eliminate the jmork dependency and at the same time have access
to Thunderbird contacts (or pointlessly creating a new Mork database reader
library).
But as Damian's patch demonstrates, it's easy to rip that plugin out if
need be. I just don't see the need right now, and speeding up a potential
(un)official JNLP-version has nothing to do with the submitted Debian
package.

I unfortunately don't get what you mean by "put in a stronger position"...?

Freundliche Grüsse,
Ingo Bauersachs

-- sent from my mobile

Le 20.09.2014 à 14:28, "Daniel Pocock" <daniel@pocock.com.au> a écrit :

On 20/09/14 08:15, Emil Ivov wrote:

Daniel, would you like to comment?

--sent from my mobile
On 20 Sep 2014 3:06 AM, "Ingo Bauersachs" <ingo@jitsi.org> wrote:

I know that this is deb only, but still...

Yes, Daniel had licensing concerns about combining LGPL&EPL, but he
asked on Debian-Legal and as far as I interpreted the outcome of that
discussion it is fine (contrary to GPL&EPL).

This is the response that came back:

https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/07/msg00002.html

It is OK to rely on the responses from the debian-legal list when
submitting something to Debian.

However, if you do have the possibility to eliminate this dependency, make
it optional or use some other dependency instead then that puts your
project in a stronger position and may also make it faster to load the JNLP
version.

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@jitsi.org
Unsubscribe instructions and other list options:
http://lists.jitsi.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@jitsi.org
Unsubscribe instructions and other list options:
http://lists.jitsi.org/mailman/listinfo/dev