[Replicant] Decision to not create a Replicant 6.0 SDK

[Wolfgang Wiedmeyer]

Paul Kocialkowski writes:

>> So my proposition is to not work on a Replicant 6.0 SDK, but to get the
>> Debian Android SDK into more distributions, especially GNU
>> FSDG-compliant ones. A blog post could address this and encourage users,
>> that are interested in a Replicant 6.0 SDK, to work with the developers
>> of the distro they are using to get the Debian Android SDK packaged in
>> their distro. If we agree on this strategy, it would be good to clarify
>> some of the things below before writing a blog post, so we can provide
>> more specific instructions on how this goal can be reached.
>
> I definitely agree. The SDK is exactly the kind of tools that should be packaged
> along with distros, rather than distributed as binary archives (which is no
> proper way to distribute tools anyway).

This should be included as another reason in the post.

> The reasons you are bringing up seem very valid and your plan for informing the
> community about it makes sense. So you've got my ACK on this :)

Ok, great! :)

>> Hans-Christoph Steiner from the Debian Android Tools team addresses
>> uploading to other distros in a mail[5]. I didn't yet see any efforts to
>> get the SDK properly packaged in Arch Linux or in Parabola for that
>> matter. Arch only seems to have packages that download the SDK from
>> Google's servers without building it from source. Maybe some Parabola or
>> Arch folks can comment on this? What would be the best strategy to get
>> the packages into Arch? I guess if they are in Arch, they will show up
>> in Parabola as well, at least eventually.
>
> Maybe contacting the current SDK maintainer in Arch to get their opinion on this
> would be worth it. If they seem opposed to it and unlikely to include it in
> Arch, it's probably best to work directly with the Parabola folks.

Ok, I'll do this.

Best regards,
Wolfgang

> I believe PKGBUILDs are much easier and simpler to deal with than the Debian
> packaging system, so the task is probably not that big now that everything is
> already ready from Debian (it would probably have been harder the other way
> round).
>
> Cheers and thanks for your continued efforts,


-- 
Website: https://fossencdi.org
OpenPGP: 0F30 D1A0 2F73 F70A 6FEE  048E 5816 A24C 1075 7FC4
Key download: https://wiedmeyer.de/keys/ww.asc
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 818 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/replicant/attachments/20170413/c239d9f0/attachment.asc>