Two months ago, I started to package OpenVibe for Debian. Yann Renard was our contact back then and actually pinged me a week ago. But I had questions and since a week I have no news. So I believe the best is to post my questions on the forum.
So I have made an preliminary package based on the 0.13 version (I will of course update to the latest release soon). But for those interested, you can get the current source of the Debian Package in its git repository:git://anonscm.debian.org/pkg-exppsy/openvibe.git
Now I am stucked because I need the OpenVibe project to answer few questions.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 Yann Rennard contact information instead since he is currently the contact?
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 could be changed into a single and modular one.
I completely understand that the OpenVibe authors have other priorities. That is why I volunteer myself to do it. But before spending too much time at doing it, I would like to know if the 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,