[Pkg-crosswire-devel] Packaging Project Planning

[Jonathan Marsden]

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.

> 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 :)

> 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 :)

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.

> https://launchpad.net/crosswire/+download

I guess.  Can we make a debian subdirectory under there so it is clearer 
what this stuff is?

> 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...

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 :)

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?

> SWORD and Xiphos are in experimental already ;-) see above.

Not SWORD 1.6.0 ... not even SWORD 1.6.0RC3 is in experimental.

> 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?

Jonathan