[Pkg-crosswire-devel] Packaging Project Planning

[Dmitrijs Ledkovs]

2009/5/20 Jonathan Marsden <jmarsden at fastmail.fm>:
> Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>
>> I think you mean ftpparse..... well it FTBS without it. There is a
>> Public-Domain replacement in the package ftp-copy which can be
>> "borrowed" I've tried building with that, but unfortunatly sword will
>> need tweaking and adjusting to use that one.
>
> I'd suggest tweaking it, and providing the patch to the SWORD folks. Once
> they accept the patch we can include it in our 1.6.0 packages.
>

Unfortunatly I am not good enough to do that. I don't know C++ at all
and the C i know is not quite good enough to understand everything in
the ftpparse. So I can only suggest point out.

>> there is also win32/dirent.[cpp|h] saying BSD but you can only charge
>> to cover the cost of distribution which is not GPL compatible.
>
> Right, those need to go.  And can safely be deleted from a repacked source
> tarball intended for Debian/Ubuntu use.
>
>>> We most definitely need to update debian/copyright to talk about all the
>>> non-SWORD code in the tarball.
>
>> Yeap I'll do that
>
> Good, thanks.  If you can include all the files that are currently in the
> 1.6.0 tarball in there, then as we remove them by repacking we can get rid
> of them from debian/copyright also (or mention that they have been excluded
> from the repacked tarball in there).  This way we won't accidentally leave
> something in that we should leave out.
>
>> I definatly want to hit stable with very stable sword. But on the
>> other hand I'm not a power user of sword so yes I agree on this one
>> osis2mod does need to be improved. ...
>
>>>> Lenny NOW
>>>> There are no PPA's for lenny. I've manage to create download's area on
>>>> our "crosswire" project on launchpad shall we upload alpha lenny debs
>>>> there? Cause there was a request for Lenny debs today.....
>
> How did you end up handling the "now" part -- did you just email them to the
> requestor??  I mean, it is already a day or two after "now", if you see what
> I mean :)
>

The "now" part is defined like so:

real now < "now" < testing/backports.org

=D I provided them with build instructions. How to grab source package
how to install dependencies and how to build it and install it for
their system.

>> I think Sid is far away from Lenny right now so people are a bit
>> reluctant to pull things from there cause that breaks people's
>> systems. Original plan was to use backports.org once we are in
>> testing, but until then provide downloadable debs.
>
> Experimental is fine as long as you choose what bits of it you use. It's
> called using the apt preferences file :)
>

Well it is build with all dependencies from SID, so it is linked
against GTK in SID which is like 1.5 years ahead of what was shipped
in Lenny...... and then the regular gcc, glibc and so on. So I'm not
quite sure about binary compatability.

> Once we get "normal" users (non-developers) hooked on our PPAs or on private
> repos, getting them  to use the real official repos will be difficult;
> better to get them doing it right from the beginning.
>

It will be hard if we make a Debian repo. The PPAs should be easy,
cause all our numbering in PPA is lower from dpkg point of view than
what will be in the repos. So once people upgrade to a release with
the new packages they should automagically switch to that.

>> https://launchpad.net/crosswire/+download
>
> I guess.  Can we make a debian subdirectory under there so it is clearer
> what this stuff is?
>

There is nothing there.... It's just launchpad forces to create a
milestone/series to add download's area. Plus I was experimenting a
little bit with bug tracker there to see if we can use it to track
packaging tasks.

>> On the other hand your place will be able to store Package.gz which
>> will turn it into apt-aware repository. How are you with traffic? And
>> will you be able to do ftp, http, https or ssh uploads? cause we can
>> maintain debs and package.gz (I know horrid) in a bzr branch and use
>> upload plugin to push the latest revision upto your download area. I'm
>> just worried about traffic a little bit.
>
> How long to you expect this non-standard approach to be necessary?  It takes
> us a week to get into unstable and ten days or so to get from there into
> testing...
>

Yeah maybe it is bad idea to do something that permament.

> BTW, the computeroptions.net server is at a major colo site and could handle
> maybe an average of 10 GB/day (300GB/month) of SWORD-related downloads with
> no issues.  After that I'd at least have to explain to my bosses what was
> going on to spike our traffic :)
>

Wow if this is considered a peak over average I wonder what you lot really do =D

> But again, I was seeing this as a very short term "Lenny now" fix, only...
> you seem to be looking at it as something for longer, and I don't understand
> why we need anything like this long term?
>

yeah, might as well ignore that.

>> SWORD and Xiphos are in experimental already ;-) see above.
>
> Not SWORD 1.6.0 ... not even SWORD 1.6.0RC3 is in experimental.
>

Well yeah...

>> To be fair I would like to wait for KDE and GNOME transitions to
>> finish in Debian (they are killing KDE 3.5 and GTK 1.x in Squeeze) but
>> have libsword8 waiting in new queue shortly after.
>
> Let's see if we can get a decent SWORD 1.6.0-1 package ready for Debian
> upload in the next 7 days.  Then we can decide whether to upload it to
> experimental or to unstable.  If you want (or need) to provide debs for a
> few Debian Lenny users for the next couple of weeks, do whatever is easiest
> for you -- but don't continue to offer or support that approach once we have
> packages in Debian itself.  How does that sound?
>

This does sound like a good plan.

> Jonathan
>



-- 
With best regards


Dmitrijs Ledkovs (for short Dima),
Ледков Дмитрий Юрьевич