2015-09-12 21:56 GMT+02:00 Sebastiaan Couwenberg <sebas...@xs4all.nl>:
> Hi Jérémy & David,
>
> Please share your thoughts about the future of the mapnik-vector-tile,
> and its reverse dependencies (node-mapnik &
> node-tilelive-{bridge,mapnik,vector}).
>
> On 12-09-15 13:10, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> > The mapbox/pbf.hpp dependency is no longer required, mapnik-vector-tile
> > has switched to the protozero [0] library also required for recent
> > libosmium releases.
> >
> > mapnik/clipper is still required, this is a mapnik specific fork of
> > polyclipping [1] (packaged in Debian as libpolyclipping [2]).
> >
> > I've updated the mapnik-vector-tile package to the recent 0.10.0
> > upstream release and patched it to use the protozero Debian package
> > instead of a clone of the protozero git repository. I'll do the same for
> > mapnik-clipper once that's packaged (I'm working on that too).
>
> I've create initial Debian packaging for mapnik/clipper [0], and updated
> mapnik-vector-tile [1] to use that package.
>
> mapnik-vector-tile (0.10.0+dfsg-1) now builds successfully, but a test
> does fail.
>
> Updating the mapnik-vector-tile package to work with mapnik 3.0.x, and
> packaging the mapnik/clipper dependency is being discussed in the
> upstream issue tracker [2].
>
> One of the upstream developers remarked that packaging
> mapnik-vector-tile shouldn't be required, because developers are
> expected to bundle mapnik-vector-tile in their projects.
>
> As noted in the issue, mapnik-vector-tile is packaged because
> node-mapnik requires it. And node-mapnik is in turn required for
> node-tilelive-{bridge,mapnik,vector}.
>
> Maybe we should consider removing mapnik-vector-tile and its reverse
> dependencies from the archive.
>
> What are your thoughts about this as the maintainers of these packages?
>
My position is that it is good to have node-mapnik in debian, because it's
not that easy to
install otherwise - and i'm quite motivated to update it, but i'll find
time to do it before the
end of the year.
Jérémy
