[squeak-dev] Ubuntu package maintainers help

 
>From bert's thread Linux package maintainers need help...
>
>
>Bert Freudenberg bert at freudenbergs.de
>Wed Apr 15 13:19:45 UTC 2009 wrote:
>
<snip old stuff>
>
>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.

>
>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.

>These volunteers ("package maintainers") take the source code  
>from an "upstream" author and make a binary package from that,  
>typically by writing a few scripts that compile and install the  
>software in the right place and with the right supporting files (which  
>may be different for each Linux distribution).
>
Yes, and to a certain extent that is out of our control. And only under our influence if those in direct control wish to allow it.

Chris's complaint to Ubuntu about sound in the squeak distribution will be a year old in May. Even though a solution is known the action to fix it has not happened.


Umm. Part of the problem is the need for a smoke test that shows the problem early.
Squeak on loading should show off and sound off. That we can work on.

Then when things don't work they won't appear to work.





>Now what needs to happen is that a user who discovers that sound is  
>not working must file a bug report for the package *maintainer*.

Chris did exactly that. See above.

>Not  
>with the author (us), because that would bypass the maintainer. So use  
>your distro's bug tracker, not bugs.squeak.org.

Um. There is a problem of multiplicity.
Each distro has its own tracker. Trackers don't insure action will be taken.
See above.
What the distro's won't do, we have no control over.

Still, as a developer, I want my work distributed on fully working squeak systems.
How might this be done by things within our control?



>But in general, we should try to make it as easy for package  
>maintainers as possible. Even if it is just by letting them know that  
>their package is used. So Squeak developers on Linux should try to use  
>the distro's packages, and if they are insufficient, give feedback.  
>Also, the source code should come with clear instructions on how to  
>build it, what dependencies there are etc.
>
One activity the board should support with re$ource$ is a routine fresh installation
of squeak from key distros to see if they can pass a smoke test. Where problems are found more frequent tests should be scheduled until things are in a good state.

In choosing key distros the 20-80 rule should apply.



>Maybe having a mailing list specifically for maintainers would be  
>useful?

With all the bug trackers out there we should have a mail list to monitor and collect bug updates from them.
AFAIK tell Ubuntu tracks bugs separately from Debian on which it is based.

That was a useful collection.

I have started by joining and chiming in on Ubuntu. Six are too many to focus on at present.



>The good news is that once there are "good" packages in the major  
>Linux distributions, the smaller ones can follow suite much more  
>easily. The big issues of e.g. what build dependencies exist are  
>solved by then, and everyone can learn from each other.

+1. Focus on one. Learn our lessons. Spread the knowledge.

Part of the problem is that bugs once known are not being squashed in a timely fashion.
The result is an infestation of problems.

Theres another thing to say here. A vm gets distributed with etoys.
It has the necessary plugins. It can be used instead of a squeak vm.
There are some considerations that have to be addressed.
These are the difference between the dialog box when the window close button is hit.
If that were taken care of then AFAIK all you would need would be a shell script for launching squeak images using the etoys vm.

There is one more issue that needs to be addressed.
Our download website is overloaded with information.
And while mac and window users have a path forward.
Linux users are expected to make TOO many decisions
Decisions based on information they lack.

So that needs simplifing and sorting as well.

So in sum:
Fruitful efforts are to
1) make etoys and squeak more compatible with etoys vm package.
2) Simplify and clean up the linux download web page(s).

As Bert said:


>So there. Who else wants to get involved?

<snip>

Yours in curiosity and service, --Jerome Peace


     

On 16.04.2009, at 05:17, Jerome Peace wrote:

That already exists, but maybe Matej could need a hand:

http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/3616

>> 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.

Yes, and I don't know why. However, providing our own packages to me  
is not much better than simply compiling from source. It's a  
workaround rather than a fix.

Good suggestion. How to invoke a smoke test should be part of the  
maintainer's guide.

>> Now what needs to happen is that a user who discovers that sound is
>> not working must file a bug report for the package *maintainer*.
>
> Chris did exactly that. See above.

I know, and I acknowledged that. My long post was about illustrating  
the whole picture.

>> Not
>> with the author (us), because that would bypass the maintainer. So  
>> use
>> your distro's bug tracker, not bugs.squeak.org.
>
> Um. There is a problem of multiplicity.

Which is considered a Good Thing in the volunteer-driven open source  
world.

> Each distro has its own tracker. Trackers don't insure action will  
> be taken.

Right. That's what "voluntary work" means.

> What the distro's won't do, we have no control over.

"The distro" won't do anything. You need to get that out of your head.  
"The distro" is the sum of the people working on it. Become part of  
that community. Participate in mailing lists. Let the maintainers know  
what works and is already helpful (!) and what does not. One of the  
things why maintainers put in work is because of recognition within  
the community.

> Still, as a developer, I want my work distributed on fully working  
> squeak systems.
> How might this be done by things within our control?

If you are shipping your own application you have to include a VM.  
That's the only safe bet. At least until distro packages are mature,  
but depending on your app maybe even then.

> One activity the board should support with re$ource$ is a routine  
> fresh installation
> of squeak from key distros to see if they can pass a smoke test.  
> Where problems are found more frequent tests should be scheduled  
> until things are in a good state.
>
> In choosing key distros the 20-80 rule should apply.

I don't exactly see how money would help here. But starting a page on  
squeak.org with this information, gathered by volunteers and kept up-
to-date would be a Very Good Thing.

>> Maybe having a mailing list specifically for maintainers would be
>> useful?
>
> With all the bug trackers out there we should have a mail list to  
> monitor and collect bug updates from them.
> AFAIK tell Ubuntu tracks bugs separately from Debian on which it is  
> based.

Not a bad idea. Not sure how easy that would be. Some bug trackers  
(like launchpad) allow to subscribe to all events on a particular  
package, others (the Trac installations I know) don't.

Some trackers allow to track upstream issues, that is, a distro  
maintainer would link the distro bug report with an upstream bug report.

It was just 10 minutes spent with google, but thanks ;)

> I have started by joining and chiming in on Ubuntu.

Great!

I don't really see how that is relevant. If you download a VM from  
squeakvm.org that would work too.

> There are some considerations that have to be addressed.
> These are the difference between the dialog box when the window  
> close button is hit.

Which is an image issue, as I mentioned several times. Unless someone  
contributes a VM patch to optionally restore the old behavior, which  
was to kill the image and loose everything without asking.

> If that were taken care of then AFAIK all you would need would be a  
> shell script for launching squeak images using the etoys vm.

Which is totally besides the point. But hope you get my drift by now.

> There is one more issue that needs to be addressed.
> Our download website is overloaded with information.
> And while mac and window users have a path forward.
> Linux users are expected to make TOO many decisions
> Decisions based on information they lack.
>
> So that needs simplifing and sorting as well.

I'm sure the web team would be happy to get a proposal from you.

> So in sum:
> Fruitful efforts are to
> 1) make etoys and squeak more compatible with etoys vm package.
> 2) Simplify and clean up the linux download web page(s).
>
> As Bert said:
>
>
>> So there. Who else wants to get involved?

Hehe. Indeed. But I think we're onto something.

- Bert -

On Thursday 16 April 2009 3:32:17 pm Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> Squeakland should provide only Mac and Win installers, and work with  
> the distros to carry an up-to-date Etoys package.
Expecting distros to package and distribute makes sense only for purely FOSS
projects. Till the licensing questions around Squeak are cleared,
distributors may not want to carry it in their repos.

What is the blocker for a proper deb repo on Squeakland?

Has anyone in the oversight board contacted medibuntu-maintainers
(http://medibuntu.org/)?

Subbu

On 19.04.2009, at 16:24, K. K. Subramaniam wrote:

> On Thursday 16 April 2009 3:32:17 pm Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>> Squeakland should provide only Mac and Win installers, and work with
>> the distros to carry an up-to-date Etoys package.
> Expecting distros to package and distribute makes sense only for  
> purely FOSS
> projects. Till the licensing questions around Squeak are cleared,
> distributors may not want to carry it in their repos.

There is no licensing problem anymore for the VM, and neither for  
Etoys 4.0.

Even Debian did not object to the licensing anymore - it's in non-free  
because they do not like the idea of purely image-based development.  
Which is one of the reason why I'm only shooting for VM packages for  
now.

> What is the blocker for a proper deb repo on Squeakland?
>
> Has anyone in the oversight board contacted medibuntu-maintainers
> (http://medibuntu.org/)?


I don't think that's the board's job, and secondly medibuntu is for  
software with license issues. So no point as that does not apply to us  
anymore, not to the VM and not to Squeak 4.0 once it is released. I'm  
just saying we should not sit and wait until 4.0 is done, but make the  
distro contacts now, let the VM packages pave the way.

- Bert -

On Sunday 19 April 2009 8:11:17 pm Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>  I'm  
> just saying we should not sit and wait until 4.0 is done, but make the  
> distro contacts now, let the VM packages pave the way.
It is the image package which is installed. It would pull in VM as a
dependency. Of course, the image could also come in as a file, but I would
think that wouldn't be a complete case.

Am I missing something here? It has been a long day. I sure feel dense :-(

Subbu

Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>
> Even Debian did not object to the licensing anymore - it's in non-free
> because they do not like the idea of purely image-based development.
> Which is one of the reason why I'm only shooting for VM packages for now.

This approach does not make sense to me. What is the point of including
Squeak VM to Debian without image(s) and sources? It would mean that
half of the things is distributed in one way (through Debian
repositories) and other things (images & sources) are distributed in
other ways (users have to hunt for right kind of image and right kind of
sources on the web). In my opinion, this approach is chaotic.

Including Squeak VM to Debian repositories could have been done anytime.
I did try to do that because it alone makes little sense (my opinion).

On 19.04.2009, at 18:48, K. K. Subramaniam wrote:


My point is that Squeak developers all use their own images anyway.  
Most of them do only care about the VM to the point that they expect  
it to work. More importantly, they lack the skill to make the VM work.  
So the VM is the part of Squeak that is most needed to be pre-compiled  
and packaged. It's also the hardest part because of various  
dependencies on architecture, libraries etc.

I'm not saying images should not be packaged. I'm just advocating to  
start with the VM, for the various reasons I mentioned before (need,  
utility, difficulty, licensing). It for now would solve the hardest  
problem.

Note I'm not talking about packages available at squeak.org (which of  
course should package everything) but about the packages to become  
proper part of the various distros.

- Bert -

On 19.04.2009, at 20:03, Matej Kosik wrote:


In my opinion it does, and it solves the hardest problem first (see my  
reply to Subbu).

Going for all-or-nothing just prolongs the current undesirable  
situation unnecessarily. I'm proposing to go step by step. Of course,  
the people actually doing the work will decide on their own which path  
to take.

- Bert -

On Monday 20 April 2009 12:57:16 am Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> My point is that Squeak developers all use their own images anyway.  
> Most of them do only care about the VM to the point that they expect  
> it to work. More importantly, they lack the skill to make the VM work.  
> So the VM is the part of Squeak that is most needed to be pre-compiled  
> and packaged. It's also the hardest part because of various  
> dependencies on architecture, libraries etc.
What you say is true for developers but not sufficient for consumers. I would
expect Squeak developers to be a small part of the universe of Squeak
consumers (think of children and teachers). A image is what is needed,
however small or however old. Eliot's suggestion to have a small bootstrap
image is a good one. The image can help a Smalltalker navigate host file
system and bring up a bigger image.

Subbu

On 20.04.2009, at 11:59, K. K. Subramaniam wrote:

That's why Etoys is being packaged. For "consumers". With example  
projects, tutorials, online-help. That is already in the works, in  
particular as part of Sugar, which is an entry ticket for us. People  
want it in. But of course it does not depend on Sugar so works stand-
alone, too. It *does* depend on a working and up-to-date Squeak-VM  
package.

> A image is what is needed,
> however small or however old. Eliot's suggestion to have a small  
> bootstrap
> image is a good one. The image can help a Smalltalker navigate host  
> file
> system and bring up a bigger image.


This is a nice idea but also requires major additional work. The VM  
can be packaged right now, as is.

- Bert -