[request-tracker-maintainers] Packaging extensions

[Niko Tyni]

On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 04:39:03PM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> Has anyone packaged RT extensions before? I'm probably going to want
> to deploy at least one so I thought it would be best to package them
> up properly. It probably makes sense for these to be maintained
> within the team, in the svn repository.
> 
> I guess RTFM counts as one of these although that's a bit bigger than
> most.
> 
> So I guess the only concrete question I have right now is package naming.
> 
> I'm thinking that we have a source package per distribution
> (example: http://search.cpan.org/~nchuche/RTx-EmailCompletion-0.06/)
> 
> and binary packages for each supported major version of RT, with
> files installed in /usr/share/request-tracker${VER}. So how about
> 
> rt-extension-emailcompletion (source)
> rt-extension-emailcompletion-3.8 (binary)
> rt-extension-emailcompletion-4.0 (... possible extra binary)

The only precedent I'm aware of is RTFM, where the binary package is
called rt3.6-rtfm. I don't care much one way or the other though,
and rtfm is probably not going to make it for squeeze anyway unless
somebody picks it up and gives it some TLC.

I was thinking about librtx-emailcompletion-perl, but the extensions
require RT.pm and others, so they can't just be installed in
/usr/share/perl5. There are also Mason files besides the perl libraries.

I'm a bit concerned about code duplication between the binary packages,
although I suppose it doesn't matter much for small ones. Also, we
only have 3.8 staged for squeeze currently so we probably shouldn't
worry about that at all yet.
-- 
Niko Tyni   ntyni at debian.org