[squeak-dev] Ubuntu package maintainers help
Locked
12
12
[squeak-dev] Ubuntu package maintainers help
 
|
Hi Bert and all, Response to Berts reply: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2009-April/135572.html > >>> In the closed-source world (Mac, Win) typically the software authors >>> provide binary packages for end users. This is even true for open- >>> source software on these platforms, the authors provide ready-to- >>> install packages, separate from with the source code. That's why we >>> have Windows and Mac downloads on our website. It's a one-size-fits- >>> all approach, and all work is done by the authors. > >> I would like to see something like this for Ubuntu. I think it is a >> good place to start. It gives a reasonable goal to shoot for. >> Lessons learned can then be applied to other squeak distro's one by >> one. > >That already exists, but maybe Matej could need a hand: > >http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/3616 > In the meantime I note that he is focused on debian which spawns ubuntu. It is not exactly the same. And not the same in the minds of Ubuntu's users. On our download website their is no specific mention of Ubuntu which impedes navigation. Also the information presented to linux users requires way too many decisions for someone just getting started. Trust me on this. We can address this. It is something I would like to oversight board not to overlook. If you will pardon the pun. >>> Not so in Linux. Here, building the binary packages that fit into a >>> specific Linux distribution is typically done by users of that Linux >>> version. >> >> That was not true of the etoys installation from squeakland. It does >> not have to be true for distro's squeak.org supplies. > >Squeakland should provide only Mac and Win installers, and work with >the distros to carry an up-to-date Etoys package. > >Right now there also is an RPM and a DEB package at squeakland, but I >see that as a thing of the past. It already leads to confusion when >people try to combine those packages with the ones from their distro. >The squeakland packages are not even a good model how to package Etoys >but more of a hack. > Why do you say it is a thing of the past. The distro's distribute a squeak that doesn't work. That's a thing of the current. It doesn't become a thing of the past until people outside of this community act. That action presently is in the realm of vaporware or REAL-SOON-NOW. I have had no response to my addition to Chris's Ubuntu bug report. This indicates the future will not come soon. Meanwhile people need their software to work. As a developer I wish to distribute to audiences with fully functioning squeaks and etoys. Or know it can't be done and move on elsewhere. Right now it is undecided. Though I find your last post most discouraging. Is that what you intended? Yours in curiosity and service, --Jerome Peace |
Re: [squeak-dev] Ubuntu package maintainers help
|
|
On 19.04.2009, at 01:25, Jerome Peace wrote:
> > Hi Bert and all, > > Response to Berts reply: > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2009-April/135572.html > >> >>>> In the closed-source world (Mac, Win) typically the software >>>> authors >>>> provide binary packages for end users. This is even true for open- >>>> source software on these platforms, the authors provide ready-to- >>>> install packages, separate from with the source code. That's why we >>>> have Windows and Mac downloads on our website. It's a one-size- >>>> fits- >>>> all approach, and all work is done by the authors. >> >>> I would like to see something like this for Ubuntu. I think it is a >>> good place to start. It gives a reasonable goal to shoot for. >>> Lessons learned can then be applied to other squeak distro's one by >>> one. >> >> That already exists, but maybe Matej could need a hand: >> >> http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/3616 >> > If he asks for help and there is help I can give, okay. Matej unsubscribed from squeak-dev about a year ago, saying he was still interested in Squeak but less enthusiastic. So it's unlikely he would ask for help, we have to offer it. I'm cc'ing a few of the people I know worked on DEB packages before. Guys - what do you think of the idea to have a mailing list specifically for packaging issues? Here is my initial post explaining the motivation: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2009-April/135551.html > In the meantime I note that he is focused on debian which spawns > ubuntu. It is not exactly the same. And not the same in the minds of > Ubuntu's users. As far as I know there is no Ubuntu maintainer for Squeak packages. There is interest (far example by the Sugar maintainers) but finding one specifically for Squeak would be rather valuable. > On our download website their is no specific mention of Ubuntu which > impedes navigation. > > Also the information presented to linux users requires way too many > decisions for someone just getting started. Trust me on this. I know, and I do. > We can address this. It is something I would like to oversight board > not to overlook. If you will pardon the pun. As a board member I feel responsible for the long-term sustainability of the Squeak project. Hacks and workarounds can be done by anybody, you don't need the board for this. Anyway, for immediate relieve I did ask you for a proposal that the web team could implement right away. >>>> Not so in Linux. Here, building the binary packages that fit into a >>>> specific Linux distribution is typically done by users of that >>>> Linux >>>> version. >>> >>> That was not true of the etoys installation from squeakland. It does >>> not have to be true for distro's squeak.org supplies. >> >> Squeakland should provide only Mac and Win installers, and work with >> the distros to carry an up-to-date Etoys package. >> >> Right now there also is an RPM and a DEB package at squeakland, but I >> see that as a thing of the past. It already leads to confusion when >> people try to combine those packages with the ones from their distro. >> The squeakland packages are not even a good model how to package >> Etoys >> but more of a hack. >> > A hack that saves the day is rather welcome IMHO. IMHO we do have enough hacks already. > Why do you say it is a thing of the past. Because having Etoys and Squeak packaged by the distributions is the only sustainable way forward. Why do you think we spent so much effort on the relicensing? Because we do want to enjoy the benefits of being part of the larger open- source community. It's still a big initial effort but will pay off in the long run. > The distro's distribute a squeak that doesn't work. > That's a thing of the current. It doesn't become a thing of the past > until people outside of this community act. That action presently is > in the realm of vaporware or REAL-SOON-NOW. > > I have had no response to my addition to Chris's Ubuntu bug report. > This indicates the future will not come soon. But heaping on workarounds does not bring the future closer. Only working with the distribution maintainers does. > Meanwhile people need their software to work. > > As a developer I wish to distribute to audiences with fully > functioning squeaks and etoys. I did not phrase it as a direct question in my last post, but what exactly are you trying to distribute to which audience? > Right now it is undecided. Though I find your last post most > discouraging. Is that what you intended? Of course not. I just do not think adding yet one more set of DEB packages helps improve the situation. It did not help in the past. I'd like to see it done right this time, and I feel the situation is much more favorable now than it was ever before. So if anything I want to *encourage* you and others to work towards proper packages in the distros. - Bert - |
Re: [squeak-dev] Ubuntu package maintainers help
|
|
Hi all,
Bert Freudenberg wrote: > On 19.04.2009, at 01:25, Jerome Peace wrote: > >> >> Hi Bert and all, >> >> Response to Berts reply: >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2009-April/135572.html >> >> >>> >>>>> In the closed-source world (Mac, Win) typically the software authors >>>>> provide binary packages for end users. This is even true for open- >>>>> source software on these platforms, the authors provide ready-to- >>>>> install packages, separate from with the source code. That's why we >>>>> have Windows and Mac downloads on our website. It's a one-size-fits- >>>>> all approach, and all work is done by the authors. >>> >>>> I would like to see something like this for Ubuntu. I think it is a >>>> good place to start. It gives a reasonable goal to shoot for. >>>> Lessons learned can then be applied to other squeak distro's one by >>>> one. >>> >>> That already exists, but maybe Matej could need a hand: >>> >>> http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/3616 >>> >> If he asks for help and there is help I can give, okay. > > Matej unsubscribed from squeak-dev about a year ago, saying he was still > interested in Squeak but less enthusiastic. So it's unlikely he would > ask for help, we have to offer it. The repository: http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/3616 was I believe always meant as a intermediate solution before Squeak enters usual distribution channels (Debian repositories, Ubuntu repositories). I have been updating it for a while. I have failed to register Squeak as a regular Debian package. Although, I have never tried very hard. The problem raised by Jerome was caused by me. The published Squeak VM works but without sound. The fix is easy---at compilation time, a few other libraries must be present in the system and then the generated SqueakVM can play sound. The configure script probably decides which plugins to generate with respect to available prerequisities. Locally, I have fixed this on my machine now. I can post this to this repository http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/3616 It would fix the problem I caused. It is not yet there because I must regain access to `squeak.org' to be able to upload updated versions of packages. However, I am not sure if everybody realizes, that there is quite intricate situation: - There is Ian Piumarta who is the original author of the SqueakVM and probably knows everything about it (I really know very little about SqueakVM) - There is me who maintains http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/3616 (OK, I can read README and compile SqueakVM but I cannot solve real problems with the VM. I could look at it but I do not plan to do this because my focus moved. I am sorry. Squeak is wonderful, I liked it very much but I am now trying to solve different problems). - There are people who registered SqueakVM as regular Debian package José Luis Redrejo <[hidden email]> Now Debian (Lenny) contains SqueakVM. Although, there are no packages for Squeak images. I think this is the remnant of the old problem which nobody solved. Real dedicated work is needed to recognize Debian requirements (concerning licencing) and implement them (to choose a cleanest possible Squeak image and register it as a Debian package; or make some additional cleanups). I haven't done this. Jose's package is not based on Lex's or my work. It is better in some respects (support for 64-bit architecture---perhaps) (the negative part is missing packages with images) - Concerning Ubuntu, they usually base it on Debian packages. Today I have checked and they cite me, not Jose. That is weird because my packages are unofficial whereas Jose's packages are official. Maybe they are confused too. > > I'm cc'ing a few of the people I know worked on DEB packages before. > Guys - what do you think of the idea to have a mailing list specifically > for packaging issues? Here is my initial post explaining the motivation: > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2009-April/135551.html > > >> In the meantime I note that he is focused on debian which spawns >> ubuntu. It is not exactly the same. And not the same in the minds of >> Ubuntu's users. > > As far as I know there is no Ubuntu maintainer for Squeak packages. > There is interest (far example by the Sugar maintainers) but finding one > specifically for Squeak would be rather valuable. > >> On our download website their is no specific mention of Ubuntu which >> impedes navigation. >> >> Also the information presented to linux users requires way too many >> decisions for someone just getting started. Trust me on this. > > I know, and I do. > >> We can address this. It is something I would like to oversight board >> not to overlook. If you will pardon the pun. > > As a board member I feel responsible for the long-term sustainability of > the Squeak project. Hacks and workarounds can be done by anybody, you > don't need the board for this. > > Anyway, for immediate relieve I did ask you for a proposal that the web > team could implement right away. > >>>>> Not so in Linux. Here, building the binary packages that fit into a >>>>> specific Linux distribution is typically done by users of that Linux >>>>> version. >>>> >>>> That was not true of the etoys installation from squeakland. It does >>>> not have to be true for distro's squeak.org supplies. >>> >>> Squeakland should provide only Mac and Win installers, and work with >>> the distros to carry an up-to-date Etoys package. >>> >>> Right now there also is an RPM and a DEB package at squeakland, but I >>> see that as a thing of the past. It already leads to confusion when >>> people try to combine those packages with the ones from their distro. >>> The squeakland packages are not even a good model how to package Etoys >>> but more of a hack. >>> >> A hack that saves the day is rather welcome IMHO. > > IMHO we do have enough hacks already. > >> Why do you say it is a thing of the past. > > Because having Etoys and Squeak packaged by the distributions is the > only sustainable way forward. > > Why do you think we spent so much effort on the relicensing? Because we > do want to enjoy the benefits of being part of the larger open-source > community. It's still a big initial effort but will pay off in the long > run. > >> The distro's distribute a squeak that doesn't work. >> That's a thing of the current. It doesn't become a thing of the past >> until people outside of this community act. That action presently is >> in the realm of vaporware or REAL-SOON-NOW. >> >> I have had no response to my addition to Chris's Ubuntu bug report. >> This indicates the future will not come soon. > > But heaping on workarounds does not bring the future closer. Only > working with the distribution maintainers does. > >> Meanwhile people need their software to work. >> >> As a developer I wish to distribute to audiences with fully >> functioning squeaks and etoys. > > I did not phrase it as a direct question in my last post, but what > exactly are you trying to distribute to which audience? > >> Right now it is undecided. Though I find your last post most >> discouraging. Is that what you intended? > > > Of course not. I just do not think adding yet one more set of DEB > packages helps improve the situation. It did not help in the past. I'd > like to see it done right this time, and I feel the situation is much > more favorable now than it was ever before. So if anything I want to > *encourage* you and others to work towards proper packages in the distros. > > - Bert - > |
Re: [squeak-dev] Ubuntu package maintainers help
|
|
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg
On Apr 19, 2009, at 4:25 AM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> I'm cc'ing a few of the people I know worked on DEB packages before. > Guys - what do you think of the idea to have a mailing list > specifically for packaging issues? Here is my initial post > explaining the motivation: > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2009-April/135551.html Two things. First, there is an abundance of packaging efforts, but the one Matej maintains is the most developed. In the short term, I strongly recommend that the web team indicate these as the "main" deb files to use for Debian. I believe the Ubuntu project does include its own Squeak packages; I think that's a mistake, but it's up to them, and theirs should be indicated on the Squeak web pages as well. Similarly, I would think Debian itself of all groups should use Matej's packages. Second, many people underestimate how well developed that package set really is. They reflect multiple maintainers' work: originally they were made by Ian and Marcus, I picked up maintenance of them later, and now Matej is maintaining them. To contrast, simply making installable .deb's is just the start of a long process. Many people have made that start, and they confuse matters when they post about it as if it hasn't been done many times before. If you want really good packages, you have to go from there and refine all the rough edges. To give one example, the package layout itself takes some consideration, if you want image and sources files to be installed independently and multiply: http://ftp.squeak.org/debian/squeak-on-debian.pdf A related issue is that the "squeak" wrapper script . The one in Matej's packages has had upwards of 10 hours of discussion and development, much of the goal of which is work harmoniously with the above packaging layout: http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/5643 Another issue is integration with desktop menu item systems, so that "Squeak" is on the various Start menus. There are various menu systems around, and it takes some time to get it working for all of them. Each of these items is modest, but it adds up. It would be a terrible waste of effort, and no service to Squeak's users, to start over from scratch. -Lex |
Re: [squeak-dev] Ubuntu package maintainers help
|
|
Lex Spoon wrote:
> On Apr 19, 2009, at 4:25 AM, Bert Freudenberg wrote: >> I'm cc'ing a few of the people I know worked on DEB packages before. >> Guys - what do you think of the idea to have a mailing list >> specifically for packaging issues? Here is my initial post explaining >> the motivation: >> >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2009-April/135551.html >> > > Two things. > > First, there is an abundance of packaging efforts, but the one Matej > maintains is the most developed. In the short term, I strongly > recommend that the web team indicate these as the "main" deb files to > use for Debian. I believe the Ubuntu project does include its own > Squeak packages; I think that's a mistake, but it's up to them, and > theirs should be indicated on the Squeak web pages as well. Similarly, > I would think Debian itself of all groups should use Matej's packages. > > Second, many people underestimate how well developed that package set > really is. They reflect multiple maintainers' work: originally they > were made by Ian and Marcus, I picked up maintenance of them later, and > now Matej is maintaining them. To contrast, simply making installable > .deb's is just the start of a long process. Many people have made that > start, and they confuse matters when they post about it as if it hasn't > been done many times before. If you want really good packages, you have > to go from there and refine all the rough edges. > > To give one example, the package layout itself takes some consideration, > if you want image and sources files to be installed independently and > multiply: > > http://ftp.squeak.org/debian/squeak-on-debian.pdf Oops, I have notice a small error in the figure. `squeak-plugin' does not depend on `squeak-image-gz' but on `squeak-vm'. New version of the figure: http://altair.sk/uploads/tmp/squeak-on-debian.pdf I would upload the correction to ftp.squeak.org, but I do not have access to it now. > > A related issue is that the "squeak" wrapper script . The one in > Matej's packages has had upwards of 10 hours of discussion and > development, much of the goal of which is work harmoniously with the > above packaging layout: > > http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/5643 > > Another issue is integration with desktop menu item systems, so that > "Squeak" is on the various Start menus. There are various menu systems > around, and it takes some time to get it working for all of them. Each > of these items is modest, but it adds up. It would be a terrible waste > of effort, and no service to Squeak's users, to start over from scratch. > > > -Lex > |
[squeak-dev] Re: Ubuntu package maintainers help
|
|
In reply to this post by Matej Kosik-2
Greetings all,
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 14:45:49 +0200, Matej Kosik wrote: > Hi all, > > Bert Freudenberg wrote: >> On 19.04.2009, at 01:25, Jerome Peace wrote: >> >> >>> Hi Bert and all, >>> >>> Response to Berts reply: >>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2009-April/135572.html >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> In the closed-source world (Mac, Win) typically the software >>>>>> authors provide binary packages for end users. This is even true >>>>>> for open- source software on these platforms, the authors provide >>>>>> ready-to- install packages, separate from with the source code. >>>>>> That's why we have Windows and Mac downloads on our website. It's a >>>>>> one-size-fits- all approach, and all work is done by the authors. >>>> >>>>> I would like to see something like this for Ubuntu. I think it is a >>>>> good place to start. It gives a reasonable goal to shoot for. >>>>> Lessons learned can then be applied to other squeak distro's one by >>>>> one. >>>> >>>> That already exists, but maybe Matej could need a hand: >>>> >>>> http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/3616 >>>> >>> If he asks for help and there is help I can give, okay. >> >> Matej unsubscribed from squeak-dev about a year ago, saying he was >> still interested in Squeak but less enthusiastic. So it's unlikely he >> would ask for help, we have to offer it. > > The repository: > http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/3616 > was I believe always meant as a intermediate solution before Squeak > enters usual distribution channels (Debian repositories, Ubuntu > repositories). I have been updating it for a while. I have failed to > register Squeak as a regular Debian package. Although, I have never > tried very hard. > > The problem raised by Jerome was caused by me. The published Squeak VM > works but without sound. The fix is easy---at compilation time, a few > other libraries must be present in the system and then the generated > SqueakVM can play sound. The configure script probably decides which > plugins to generate with respect to available prerequisities. > > Locally, I have fixed this on my machine now. I can post this to this > repository > http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/3616 > It would fix the problem I caused. It is not yet there because I must > regain access to `squeak.org' to be able to upload updated versions of > packages. > > However, I am not sure if everybody realizes, that there is quite > intricate situation: > - There is Ian Piumarta who is the original author of the SqueakVM > and probably knows everything about it (I really know very little > about SqueakVM) > - There is me who maintains > http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/3616 > (OK, I can read README and compile SqueakVM but I cannot solve real > problems with the VM. I could look at it but I do not plan to do this > because my focus moved. I am sorry. Squeak is wonderful, I liked it > very much but I am now trying to solve different problems). > - There are people who registered SqueakVM as regular Debian package > José Luis Redrejo <[hidden email]> Now Debian (Lenny) contains > SqueakVM. Although, there are no packages for Squeak images. I think > this is the remnant of the old problem which nobody solved. Real > dedicated work is needed to recognize Debian requirements (concerning > licencing) and implement them (to choose a cleanest possible Squeak > image and register it as a Debian package; or make some additional > cleanups). I haven't done this. Jose's package is not based on Lex's > or my work. It is better in some respects (support for 64-bit > architecture---perhaps) (the negative part is missing packages with > images) Yes it does seem to be a rather intricate situation and I'm not sure that I understand it yet. So your packaging efforts landed in Ubuntu and source is available at wiki.squeak.org. Jose started from a different source version. His packages, (binary and source) are available at Debian. In this case, the Ubuntu package was not based on a Debian package. The image problem would be that it can't be generated from source? Until the image problem is resolved users could be advised through the VM package description to download images of their choice at squeak.org. That is how the Debian package is set up now. > - Concerning Ubuntu, they usually base it on Debian packages. > Today I have checked and they cite me, not Jose. That is weird because > my packages are unofficial whereas Jose's packages are official. Maybe > they are confused too. > > It seems that getting Ubuntu in sync with Debian would be the proper solution. >> I'm cc'ing a few of the people I know worked on DEB packages before. >> Guys - what do you think of the idea to have a mailing list >> specifically for packaging issues? Here is my initial post explaining >> the motivation: >> >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2009-April/135551.html >> >> I invited Jose and Jordan Mantha (ubuntu) to this thread. >>> In the meantime I note that he is focused on debian which spawns >>> ubuntu. It is not exactly the same. And not the same in the minds of >>> Ubuntu's users. >> >> As far as I know there is no Ubuntu maintainer for Squeak packages. >> There is interest (far example by the Sugar maintainers) but finding >> one specifically for Squeak would be rather valuable. >> >>> On our download website their is no specific mention of Ubuntu which >>> impedes navigation. >>> >>> Also the information presented to linux users requires way too many >>> decisions for someone just getting started. Trust me on this. >> >> I know, and I do. >> >>> We can address this. It is something I would like to oversight board >>> not to overlook. If you will pardon the pun. >> >> As a board member I feel responsible for the long-term sustainability >> of the Squeak project. Hacks and workarounds can be done by anybody, >> you don't need the board for this. >> >> Anyway, for immediate relieve I did ask you for a proposal that the web >> team could implement right away. >> >>>>>> Not so in Linux. Here, building the binary packages that fit into a >>>>>> specific Linux distribution is typically done by users of that >>>>>> Linux version. >>>>> >>>>> That was not true of the etoys installation from squeakland. It does >>>>> not have to be true for distro's squeak.org supplies. >>>> >>>> Squeakland should provide only Mac and Win installers, and work with >>>> the distros to carry an up-to-date Etoys package. >>>> >>>> Right now there also is an RPM and a DEB package at squeakland, but I >>>> see that as a thing of the past. It already leads to confusion when >>>> people try to combine those packages with the ones from their distro. >>>> The squeakland packages are not even a good model how to package >>>> Etoys but more of a hack. >>>> >>> A hack that saves the day is rather welcome IMHO. >> >> IMHO we do have enough hacks already. >> >>> Why do you say it is a thing of the past. >> >> Because having Etoys and Squeak packaged by the distributions is the >> only sustainable way forward. >> >> Why do you think we spent so much effort on the relicensing? Because we >> do want to enjoy the benefits of being part of the larger open-source >> community. It's still a big initial effort but will pay off in the long >> run. >> >>> The distro's distribute a squeak that doesn't work. That's a thing of >>> the current. It doesn't become a thing of the past until people >>> outside of this community act. That action presently is in the realm >>> of vaporware or REAL-SOON-NOW. >>> >>> I have had no response to my addition to Chris's Ubuntu bug report. >>> This indicates the future will not come soon. >> >> But heaping on workarounds does not bring the future closer. Only >> working with the distribution maintainers does. >> >>> Meanwhile people need their software to work. >>> >>> As a developer I wish to distribute to audiences with fully >>> functioning squeaks and etoys. >> >> I did not phrase it as a direct question in my last post, but what >> exactly are you trying to distribute to which audience? >> >>> Right now it is undecided. Though I find your last post most >>> discouraging. Is that what you intended? >> >> >> Of course not. I just do not think adding yet one more set of DEB >> packages helps improve the situation. It did not help in the past. I'd >> like to see it done right this time, and I feel the situation is much >> more favorable now than it was ever before. So if anything I want to >> *encourage* you and others to work towards proper packages in the >> distros. >> >> - Bert - >> |
Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Ubuntu package maintainers help
|
|
2009/4/19 Chris Kassopulo <[hidden email]> Greetings all, I've been following this thread from its beginning but, honestly, I can not guess what I could add. As far as I know, there are three deb packaging branches: - Packages from the squeak.org site - Package in Ubuntu - Package in Debian I maintain the packages in Debian (for squeak-vm & etoys), and the decissions I took when I did the squeak-vm package was continuing using the principles I had been using when I did the package for LinEx (our Debian based distribution in Extremadura, Spain): make the package as compatible as possible with the one at squeak.org but adding integration with the Desktop and making the non-developer user life easier. I discarded totally the ubuntu packaging as it was using a very obsolete version of the vm and it was full of bugs (and according to this thread, it hasn't changed to much since then) The squeak-vm package in Debian was updated, until the latest vm version. I haven't updated it yet because there are not many improvements since the svn version that's packaged and the main bugs (plugin integration, sound in 64 bits, etc. ) are still there. I'm waiting hopefully the road of the new efforts in the vm team that has begun recently. For the images, Bert has explained it perfectly: the etoys image is in sid because there's no way to bootstrap it from some sources. With the new efforts, it seems that can be achieved. Then I'd like to add some other images, as the one we're using in Extremadura. I must insist in one point: I'm not interested at all in the use of Squeak for developers. Developers usually don't have problems in launching a terminal if there're problems and know how to make things work. My packaging effort is focused in end users, mainly teachers and students. I think that can explain some of the decissions I took in the script that launches the image, and that forked several years ago from the script that squeak.org was using. On the other hand, once the vm has started, there's not difference in the vm from Debian or the vm from Squeak.org. It's compilation is almost the same. I just apply a couple of patches to the sources, one to fix a bug in the browser plugin directories and another to remove ffmpeg support that can not be considered free in Debian as it contains some patented algorithms and code. If there's something I can do now to improve the package in Debian I'm ready to do it, but I haven't read in this thread any suggestion yet, appart of the fact that there is three packaging versions, and that the package in Ubuntu doesn't work. Regards. José L. |
Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Ubuntu package maintainers help
|
|
José Luis Redrejo wrote:
> > I must insist in one point: I'm not interested at all in the use of > Squeak for developers. Developers usually don't have problems in > launching a terminal if there're problems and know how to make things > work. My packaging effort is focused in end users, mainly teachers and > students. Squeak distributed without images is useful precisely only for developers (those who use custom images anyway). We here: http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/3616 provide all the necessary bits (the virtual machine, the images, the sources files). Are there any versions of Squeak images that could be imported to Debian repositories? (some minimal images with sorted out licencing issues). |
Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Ubuntu package maintainers help
|
|
On 19.04.2009, at 22:20, Matej Kosik wrote: > José Luis Redrejo wrote: >> >> I must insist in one point: I'm not interested at all in the use of >> Squeak for developers. Developers usually don't have problems in >> launching a terminal if there're problems and know how to make things >> work. My packaging effort is focused in end users, mainly teachers >> and >> students. > > Squeak distributed without images is useful precisely only for > developers (those who use custom images anyway). We here: > http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/3616 > provide all the necessary bits (the virtual machine, the images, the > sources files). > > Are there any versions of Squeak images that could be imported to > Debian > repositories? (some minimal images with sorted out licencing issues). Not exactly minimal, but license-clean: http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/sucrose/glucose/etoys/ - Bert - |
Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Ubuntu package maintainers help
|
|
In reply to this post by José Luis Redrejo
José Luis Redrejo wrote:
> > I must insist in one point: I'm not interested at all in the use of > Squeak for developers. Developers usually don't have problems in > launching a terminal if there're problems and know how to make things > work. My packaging effort is focused in end users, mainly teachers and > students. This is fine. But besides users, there are developers. I can confirm that many developers appreciate the fact that they can install a given tool (erlang, coq, whetever) in a hassle-free way: apt-get install what-I-need Even developers. Developers want to *use* a given programming language. C-programmer wants to invoke gcc. He does not want to compile the gcc with its four-stage recompilation process beforehand he wants to use it. Erlang programmer wants to *use* erlang interpreter and the available libraries. He does not want to build the VM and compile the libraries when he starts Erlang programming. Etc. > I think that can explain some of the decissions I took in the > script that launches the image, and that forked several years ago from > the script that squeak.org <http://squeak.org> was using. On the other > hand, once the vm has started, there's not difference in the vm from > Debian or the vm from Squeak.org. It's compilation is almost the same. I > just apply a couple of patches to the sources, one to fix a bug in the > browser plugin directories and another to remove ffmpeg support that can > not be considered free in Debian as it contains some patented algorithms > and code. > > If there's something I can do now to improve the package in Debian I'm > ready to do it, but I haven't read in this thread any suggestion yet, > appart of the fact that there is three packaging versions, and that the > package in Ubuntu doesn't work. |
Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Ubuntu package maintainers help
|
|
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg
Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> > On 19.04.2009, at 22:20, Matej Kosik wrote: >> >> Are there any versions of Squeak images that could be imported to Debian >> repositories? (some minimal images with sorted out licencing issues). > > > Not exactly minimal, but license-clean: > > http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/sucrose/glucose/etoys/ I have looked at it (btw. Jose already created and registered appropriate package---cool). Is it possible to somehow open a browser, workspace and such? (in that image)? |
Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Ubuntu package maintainers help
|
|
On 19.04.2009, at 23:57, Matej Kosik wrote: > Bert Freudenberg wrote: >> >> On 19.04.2009, at 22:20, Matej Kosik wrote: >>> >>> Are there any versions of Squeak images that could be imported to >>> Debian >>> repositories? (some minimal images with sorted out licencing >>> issues). >> >> >> Not exactly minimal, but license-clean: >> >> http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/sucrose/glucose/etoys/ > > I have looked at it (btw. Jose already created and registered > appropriate package---cool). Is it possible to somehow open a browser, > workspace and such? (in that image)? It's not really meant for Smalltalk development, but you can press alt- shift-w to get the full world menu. - Bert - |
Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Ubuntu package maintainers help
|
|
Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> > On 19.04.2009, at 23:57, Matej Kosik wrote: > >> Bert Freudenberg wrote: >>> >>> On 19.04.2009, at 22:20, Matej Kosik wrote: >>>> >>>> Are there any versions of Squeak images that could be imported to >>>> Debian >>>> repositories? (some minimal images with sorted out licencing issues). >>> >>> >>> Not exactly minimal, but license-clean: >>> >>> http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/sucrose/glucose/etoys/ >> >> I have looked at it (btw. Jose already created and registered >> appropriate package---cool). Is it possible to somehow open a browser, >> workspace and such? (in that image)? > > It's not really meant for Smalltalk development, but you can press > alt-shift-w to get the full world menu. The two images: - etoys - etoys-dev would fit to the Lex's scheme http://ftp.squeak.org/debian/squeak-on-debian.pdf I think, that whatever Jose wanted to achieve with his separate squeak-vm package can be achieved also with our squeak-vm package (now they are different). What would be the advantage? - We could keep our rich repository: http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/3616 That contains also "licence unclean" packages. - Some of those packages could be posted to Debian - etoys - etoys-dev Really, people could then: apt-get install etoys and run it as: etoys - We would not have to maintain two (three, four, ...) separate squeak-vm package versions. How does this sound to Lex and especially to Jose? |
Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Ubuntu package maintainers help
|
|
2009/4/20 Matej Kosik <[hidden email]>
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. Today, if you have the non-free section in your sources.list, you can do apt-get install etoys, and it will install the etoys image + squeak-vm package with the vm. I'm just waiting to see if there's a way to bootstrap a squeak image from sources to move the etoys package from non-free to main. Regards. José L. |
Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Ubuntu package maintainers help
|
|
José Luis Redrejo wrote:
> > > 2009/4/20 Matej Kosik <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > > Bert Freudenberg wrote: > > > > On 19.04.2009, at 23:57, Matej Kosik wrote: > > > >> Bert Freudenberg wrote: > >>> > >>> On 19.04.2009, at 22:20, Matej Kosik wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Are there any versions of Squeak images that could be imported to > >>>> Debian > >>>> repositories? (some minimal images with sorted out licencing > issues). > >>> > >>> > >>> Not exactly minimal, but license-clean: > >>> > >>> http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/sucrose/glucose/etoys/ > >> > >> I have looked at it (btw. Jose already created and registered > >> appropriate package---cool). Is it possible to somehow open a > browser, > >> workspace and such? (in that image)? > > > > It's not really meant for Smalltalk development, but you can press > > alt-shift-w to get the full world menu. > > The two images: > - etoys > - etoys-dev > would fit to the Lex's scheme > http://ftp.squeak.org/debian/squeak-on-debian.pdf > I think, that whatever Jose wanted to achieve with his separate > squeak-vm package can be achieved also with our squeak-vm package (now > they are different). > > What would be the advantage? > - We could keep our rich repository: > http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/3616 > That contains also "licence unclean" packages. > - Some of those packages could be posted to Debian > - etoys > - etoys-dev > Really, people could then: > > apt-get install etoys > > and run it as: > > etoys > > - We would not have to maintain two (three, four, ...) > separate squeak-vm package versions. > > How does this sound to Lex and especially to Jose? > > > > I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. Having two separate squeak-vm packages (yours and ours) is, by default, a nonsense. Unless there is a reason for it. Is there a reason? Cannot we create a single squeak-vm package that would work both, for you (etoys) and for us (packages published on Squeak wiki)? Are our goals (concerning what squeak-vm package should provide) mutually exclusive? Squeak-vm package must be maintained by someone, who actually also understands the source code and can solve possible minor problems. I am not such a person. I could ask in another way: cannot your goals be achieved by taking our squeak-vm package and updating it? If not, why? > Today, if you have the > non-free section in your sources.list, you can do > apt-get install etoys, and it will install the etoys image + squeak-vm > package with the vm. > > I'm just waiting to see if there's a way to bootstrap a squeak image > from sources to move the etoys package from non-free to main. > > Regards. > José L. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > |
Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Ubuntu package maintainers help
|
|
2009/4/20 Matej Kosik <[hidden email]> José Luis Redrejo wrote: The package currently in Debian should work with the image packages published on Squeak wiki. I've not tested it, but as far as I know, you use the same directories as I use, they work.
Not, because: a) your package doesn't have desktop integration b) your package is developer friendly, not user friendly. A terminal is needed to choose between the installed images. The package in Debian show a zenity dialog (I've also added a kdialog if kde is used, but not uploaded that change to Debian yet) to choose the images, so the user doesn't need to launch a terminal and write some unix commands to get the image loaded. c) your package compiles the MPEG3Plugin that can not be in Debian due to patents problems. d) If you take a look at http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/squeak-vm/squeak-vm_3.10.3+svn1902.dfsg-1/changelog you can also see that I have added some patches to fix bugs that were not fixed in the official sources when I did the package. Most of them are fixed updtream today Maybe, the question can be: cannot your goals be achieved by taking the squeak-vm package available in Debian? if not, why? Please, don't misunderstand me, I'm totally open to change the package , but points a) and b) are really important for me. While the squeak.org package doesn't have those features, I'm not going to take backwards my users. Point c) is a must inside Debian. About the etoys package in Debian, the only difference between the package in Debian and the package in the olpc site is that Debian one is a deb instead of a rpm. Appart of that, they are exactly the same. Regards. José L. |
Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Ubuntu package maintainers help
|
|
José Luis Redrejo wrote:
> > > 2009/4/20 Matej Kosik <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > > José Luis Redrejo wrote: > > > > > > 2009/4/20 Matej Kosik <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>>> > > > > Bert Freudenberg wrote: > > > > > > On 19.04.2009, at 23:57, Matej Kosik wrote: > > > > > >> Bert Freudenberg wrote: > > >>> > > >>> On 19.04.2009, at 22:20, Matej Kosik wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Are there any versions of Squeak images that could be > imported to > > >>>> Debian > > >>>> repositories? (some minimal images with sorted out licencing > > issues). > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Not exactly minimal, but license-clean: > > >>> > > >>> http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/sucrose/glucose/etoys/ > > >> > > >> I have looked at it (btw. Jose already created and registered > > >> appropriate package---cool). Is it possible to somehow open a > > browser, > > >> workspace and such? (in that image)? > > > > > > It's not really meant for Smalltalk development, but you can > press > > > alt-shift-w to get the full world menu. > > > > The two images: > > - etoys > > - etoys-dev > > would fit to the Lex's scheme > > http://ftp.squeak.org/debian/squeak-on-debian.pdf > > I think, that whatever Jose wanted to achieve with his separate > > squeak-vm package can be achieved also with our squeak-vm > package (now > > they are different). > > > > What would be the advantage? > > - We could keep our rich repository: > > http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/3616 > > That contains also "licence unclean" packages. > > - Some of those packages could be posted to Debian > > - etoys > > - etoys-dev > > Really, people could then: > > > > apt-get install etoys > > > > and run it as: > > > > etoys > > > > - We would not have to maintain two (three, four, ...) > > separate squeak-vm package versions. > > > > How does this sound to Lex and especially to Jose? > > > > > > > > I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. > > Having two separate squeak-vm packages (yours and ours) is, by default, > a nonsense. Unless there is a reason for it. Is there a reason? > > Cannot we create a single squeak-vm package that would work both, for > you (etoys) and for us (packages published on Squeak wiki)? > > > > The package currently in Debian should work with the image packages > published on Squeak wiki. I've not tested it, but as far as I know, you > use the same directories as I use, they work. I am going to analyze look at the incompatibilities. > > > > Are our goals (concerning what squeak-vm package should provide) > mutually exclusive? > > Squeak-vm package must be maintained by someone, who actually also > understands the source code and can solve possible minor problems. I am > not such a person. > > I could ask in another way: cannot your goals be achieved by taking our > squeak-vm package and updating it? If not, why? > > > Not, because: > a) your package doesn't have desktop integration I would restated this statement as "desktop integration of our package can be improved". > b) your package is developer friendly, not user friendly. A terminal is > needed to choose between the installed images. Is this an inherent problem why our squeak-vm should be discarded? I think it can be fixed. I haven't studied KDE and GNOME specific menu systems, I confirm. On the other hand, we support debian-menu system (supported by all the other window managers except for KDE and GNOME). > The package in Debian > show a zenity dialog (I've also added a kdialog if kde is used, but not > uploaded that change to Debian yet) to choose the images, so the user > doesn't need to launch a terminal and write some unix commands to get > the image loaded. > c) your package compiles the MPEG3Plugin that can not be in Debian due > to patents problems. Is this an inherent problem why our squeak-vm should be discarded? > d) If you take a look at > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/squeak-vm/squeak-vm_3.10.3+svn1902.dfsg-1/changelog > you can also see that I have added some patches to fix bugs that were > not fixed in the official sources when I did the package. Most of them > are fixed updtream today You are doing a good job (as far as I can tell). > > > > Maybe, the question can be: cannot your goals be achieved by taking the > squeak-vm package available in Debian? if not, why? I have never asked this question myself because we always have Debian packages around so there were exactly zero reasons why to look for something else (from my point of view). If I wanted to express impolitely (logically) I would say---competing alternatives to already estabilished solutions have to justify their existence. Not what is already estabilished. Novelty does not automatically give this justification. I hope you will not be angry for all this disturbance. Email is not ideal medium for discussions (mainly when it comes to guessing emotions). > Please, don't misunderstand me, I'm totally open to change the package , > but points a) and b) are really important for me. While the squeak.org > <http://squeak.org> package doesn't have those features, I'm not going > to take backwards my users. What I believe is, that points a) and b) can be fixed in squeak.org packages. The reason why they were not fixed is, because I, for example, reject studying random standards. On the other hand, I am not against if someone (you) actually ensures that those standards are followed. > Point c) is a must inside Debian. This problem is unintentional at our side. I believe, it could be as easily fixed on our side as you fixed it at your side. >From technical point of view, what you have listed are minor details. (on the other hand, details make the difference). I see them as additional featuers not incompatible with what we already have. I will now try to look at incompatibilities which---if we decided to merge (regardless whose squeak-vm package will be taken as a base) should be resolved---things we do differently and one of us should change the mind in favor of the merge. I will let you know. Best regards, -- Matej Kosik |
Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Ubuntu package maintainers help
|
|
Jose, the packages Matej is now maintaining really are far ahead of
the ones you have uploaded. They reflect dozens of hours by at least four maintainers, and there have been multiple insights along the way about how to make things Just Work for the common use cases. In case it needs being explicit, here are some things those packages do that are not in the ones you have uploaded: A "squeak" package that pulls in everything a VM, changes, and sources file. A rich set of images files (hich would need to remain in an external apt repository) A "squeak" script that works when typed by itself... ...and also works with the images and sources packages. Desktop menu items. We should use these packages as a basis going forward. The DFSG-free ones can go into Debian proper, and the others can stay on ftp.squeak.org . The libMPEG issue is a good catch, but it seems pretty trivial, isn't it? It could be disabled for now, and later provided as an external plugin hosted on ftp.squeak.org. Lex |
Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Ubuntu package maintainers help
|
|
El 20 de abril de 2009 23:31, Lex Spoon <[hidden email]> escribió:
Jose, the packages Matej is now maintaining really are far ahead of the ones you have uploaded. They reflect dozens of hours by at least four maintainers, and there have been multiple insights along the way about how to make things Just Work for the common use cases. After reading all your arguments I only can say the same I wrote in my first email in this thread: I don't find anything else to do now from my side. I also think that some of you haven't even checked the package in Debian as some of the things you say to defend the use of the squeak.org packages are done by the Debian package too (as the script that works when typed itself or the Debian menu integration). My main issue is that I don't want the users to have to use a script to launch anything. With the Debian package they can click on a squeak image (that appears with a Squeak icon on their desktops) and open it, or launch squeak from the menus and have a graphical menu to choose the image they want to use. The vm itself is exactly the same, with the same bugs in Debian or in Squeak.org. So I don't see any benefit of using the vm from Squeak.org in Debian, it would be a backwards step. Obviously I'll be glad to receive patches to make it a better package. As Matej said previously, the vm package in Squeak.org can be improved. I fully agree, and I also do think that we should merge the package, but now the package in Debian is better from my point of view: it is not incompatible with the images in squeak.org and gives an easier experience to the non-technical users. I'm not rejecting anything, I'm just saying that both packages are very similar, almost the same, but the differences are still important from my point of view and don't see any reason to upload to Debian the vm from squeak.org, maybe the opposite would be more reasonable. Regards. José L. |
Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Ubuntu package maintainers help
|
|
I just installed the package and typed "squeak", and it didn't work.
I then looked at the script to see what it is trying to do, and it really is missing a lot compared to the script in the standard packages: it has no -l, it hardcodes the VM options to use, and it appears to have no support for actually installing an image locally. The latter means it is not really compatible with the image packages from the standard distro; it's not really very Linuxy to run Squeak as root and have all users share the same image file in /usr/share/squeak. The VM itself looks pretty similar. Is there any difference other than that yours disables the MPEG plugin? I see that you added mime-type support; that's cool. However, I don't see any desktop menu support. Overall, your packages really are significantly behind. Can you please explain why you have raced to upload from-scratch packages when there is already a mature effort? You have not yet given any reason, and seem to be saying that whoever uploads first, wins. That's not good for our users. Really, there's a much better way to do all this. Drop your packages and join Matej's and my effort. I can't speak for him, but I'd for one be delighted to have a co-maintainer. You have good ideas, but you're hampered by starting from so far behind. What say you? Lex On Apr 21, 2009, at 2:42 AM, José Luis Redrejo wrote:
|
«
Return to Squeak - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |