[Packaging] Repackaged DisplayCAL as Dummy Package

[Erich Eickmeyer]

Hi Robie,

On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 5:46:40 AM PDT Robie Basak wrote:
> Hi Erich,
> 
> We discussed this at the Technical Board meeting yesterday. We don't
> have a full answer yet, but the general thought is that there are a set
> of expectations for: 1) third party repositories enabled by default; and
> 2) packages installed from third party repositories via the archive;
> that we'd require to be met for arrangements of this kind. We think we
> need to enumerate these specifically, and we're working on creating a
> clear and unambiguous list for you.
> 
> Robie

This is good to hear. After reading through yesterday's TB meeting (I was deep 
in my dayjob at the time and, while I saw the ping, it was too late), I'm 
wondering if, perhaps, the flatpak-enabling bits need to be a separate package 
that would make it explicit enough that the user knows they're enabling 
flathub. That would be rather trivial to accomplish, and I'd be more than happy 
to work on that.

Additionally, there's also the concern that this wouldn't even seed without 
some sort of mechanism in germinate. Or, perhaps, I really need to take the 
time to learn how to actually make a snap and turn this flatpak into a snap. I 
know the opposite has been done, so maybe that needs to be done. I don't know, 
I guess I'm just thinking-in-type here.

Either way, the application in particular is highly missed so we'd like to 
have it back, one way or another. As I said before, a .deb package is nearly 
impossible at this time as it has descended into dependency hell.

Thanks,
Erich
-- 
Erich Eickmeyer
Project Leader - Ubuntu Studio
Member - Ubuntu Community Council
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/attachments/20210714/bf4946c9/attachment.sig>