Bug#484674: mldonkey: Packaging too complex
Forest Bond for...@alittletooquiet.net writes: Hi, On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:14:25PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote: On 0, Forest Bond for...@alittletooquiet.net wrote: * Why all of the Debian-specific utilities in debian/utils? This is just vanity. Please, ship the upstream software, not your own. I won't insult the maintainer's job that easily. Their goal is to offer a better user experience. They do not modify the original behavior of the project (mldonkey). Feel free to not use them. I was too harsh, you are right. I apologize. However, creating non-standard, distribution-specific ways to use the upstream software does not improve the user experience, in my mind. It makes the user harder for upstream to support, and so should not be done lightly. The right thing to say would have been Feel free to send them upstream. :) Thanks, Forest MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#484674: mldonkey: Packaging too complex
Hi, On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:54:10AM +0100, Sylvain Le Gall wrote: On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 05:32:48PM -0400, Forest Bond wrote: On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:14:25PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote: On 0, Forest Bond for...@alittletooquiet.net wrote: * Why all of the Debian-specific utilities in debian/utils? This is just vanity. Please, ship the upstream software, not your own. I won't insult the maintainer's job that easily. Their goal is to offer a better user experience. They do not modify the original behavior of the project (mldonkey). Feel free to not use them. I was too harsh, you are right. I apologize. However, creating non-standard, distribution-specific ways to use the upstream software does not improve the user experience, in my mind. It makes the user harder for upstream to support, and so should not be done lightly. As the primary writer of this utils, I really do not think having so much vanity. As I said above, my wording was too harsh. Please accept my apology. You must understand that the tools provided in debian/utils are used in various maintainer script. They are only useful for writing maintainer script. They are not intended to be used directly by user. Most of this script can be directly replaced by standard mldonkey command. The main difference is that the debian/tools utils provide offline command (i.e. without mldonkey running). This is only useful when you are configuring the package: the daemon must be offline but you must manage its configuration file. For example, mldonkey_users allow to add user at package configuration time. You can also add user when the daemon is running, directly into mldonkey (mlnet). Trying to use this tool when the daemon is running is a pretty bad idea (TM). Perhaps the utilities should go in /usr/lib/mldonkey, then, instead of /usr/bin? -Forest -- Forest Bond http://www.alittletooquiet.net http://www.pytagsfs.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#484674: mldonkey: Packaging too complex
Hello, On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 05:32:48PM -0400, Forest Bond wrote: On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:14:25PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote: On 0, Forest Bond for...@alittletooquiet.net wrote: * Why all of the Debian-specific utilities in debian/utils? This is just vanity. Please, ship the upstream software, not your own. I won't insult the maintainer's job that easily. Their goal is to offer a better user experience. They do not modify the original behavior of the project (mldonkey). Feel free to not use them. I was too harsh, you are right. I apologize. However, creating non-standard, distribution-specific ways to use the upstream software does not improve the user experience, in my mind. It makes the user harder for upstream to support, and so should not be done lightly. As the primary writer of this utils, I really do not think having so much vanity. You must understand that the tools provided in debian/utils are used in various maintainer script. They are only useful for writing maintainer script. They are not intended to be used directly by user. Most of this script can be directly replaced by standard mldonkey command. The main difference is that the debian/tools utils provide offline command (i.e. without mldonkey running). This is only useful when you are configuring the package: the daemon must be offline but you must manage its configuration file. For example, mldonkey_users allow to add user at package configuration time. You can also add user when the daemon is running, directly into mldonkey (mlnet). Trying to use this tool when the daemon is running is a pretty bad idea (TM). Regards Sylvain Le Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#484674: mldonkey: Packaging too complex
Hello, On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 09:39:20AM -0400, Forest Bond wrote: Package: mldonkey Severity: normal mldonkey packaging is way to complicated and bloated. This is unnecessary and causes bugs. * Why does mldonkey-server need an init script? Yes, it's a daemon, but that is merely an implementation detail. When it comes down to it, mldonkey is a *p2p client*. It should be run by normal users when they want to connect to a p2p network. Because this is a daemon and debian require an init-script to run it. * Why so many debconf questions? Because other users, not like you, ask for even more question. * Why all of the Debian-specific utilities in debian/utils? This is just vanity. Please, ship the upstream software, not your own. Debian-specific utils in debian/utils are specific to debian (as said in you question). I don't see why upstream author should take care of debian specific utils, since mldonkey is not debian specific (strange answer in fact -- but strange question). I answered your question with more data in another mail. * Why the special make invocations? The configure script suggests running `make', but debian/rules runs `make utils opt' or some such nonsense. It fails when I try to build the version from intrepid on my hardy box (after backporting and installing the dependencies), even though just plain `make' runs perfectly. Because it works on Debian unstable, the primary target of this package. We do not support Ubuntu (at least not directly). All of these things make the package much more complicated than it should be. Simply trying to backport the package is a process that takes several hours. What is the justification for all of this complexity? Mldonkey is not a simple application. Packaging it, is not a simple task. With time, we could simplify things. You seems to know what you want, just propose patch to solve this complexity and maybe they will be accepted (though is not up to me, since I don't have an active participation in mldonkey packaging anymore). Regards Sylvain Le Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#484674: mldonkey: Packaging too complex
Hi, On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 11:06:33AM +0100, Sylvain Le Gall wrote: On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 09:39:20AM -0400, Forest Bond wrote: * Why does mldonkey-server need an init script? Yes, it's a daemon, but that is merely an implementation detail. When it comes down to it, mldonkey is a *p2p client*. It should be run by normal users when they want to connect to a p2p network. Because this is a daemon and debian require an init-script to run it. Debian does not require an init script to run museekd. * Why the special make invocations? The configure script suggests running `make', but debian/rules runs `make utils opt' or some such nonsense. It fails when I try to build the version from intrepid on my hardy box (after backporting and installing the dependencies), even though just plain `make' runs perfectly. Because it works on Debian unstable, the primary target of this package. We do not support Ubuntu (at least not directly). It is not correct just because it works on one particular version of the distribution with one particular version of the upstream software. The non-standard invocation makes it more difficult for someone else to maintain the package. I ran into problems trying to merge a newer version of the upstream source. Invoking make as upstream recommends works as expected. -Forest -- Forest Bond http://www.alittletooquiet.net http://www.pytagsfs.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#484674: mldonkey: Packaging too complex
Hi, On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:54:10AM +0100, Sylvain Le Gall wrote: On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 05:32:48PM -0400, Forest Bond wrote: On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:14:25PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote: On 0, Forest Bond for...@alittletooquiet.net wrote: * Why all of the Debian-specific utilities in debian/utils? This is just vanity. Please, ship the upstream software, not your own. I won't insult the maintainer's job that easily. Their goal is to offer a better user experience. They do not modify the original behavior of the project (mldonkey). Feel free to not use them. I was too harsh, you are right. I apologize. However, creating non-standard, distribution-specific ways to use the upstream software does not improve the user experience, in my mind. It makes the user harder for upstream to support, and so should not be done lightly. As the primary writer of this utils, I really do not think having so much vanity. You must understand that the tools provided in debian/utils are used in various maintainer script. They are only useful for writing maintainer script. They are not intended to be used directly by user. Most of this script can be directly replaced by standard mldonkey command. The main difference is that the debian/tools utils provide offline command (i.e. without mldonkey running). This is only useful when you are configuring the package: the daemon must be offline but you must manage its configuration file. For example, mldonkey_users allow to add user at package configuration time. You can also add user when the daemon is running, directly into mldonkey (mlnet). Trying to use this tool when the daemon is running is a pretty bad idea (TM). BTW, who will now maintain these four C programs that exist to support the least common use-case for this package? Thanks, Forest -- Forest Bond http://www.alittletooquiet.net http://www.pytagsfs.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#484674: mldonkey: Packaging too complex
merge 332324 484674 thanks On 0, Forest Bond for...@alittletooquiet.net wrote: mldonkey packaging is way to complicated and bloated. This is unnecessary and causes bugs. * Why so many debconf questions? You're right. Maybe we can simplify this a bit. We are currently working on this problem. This is the only relevant criticism in this bug report. Thus, I'm merging this bug with a similar one. * Why all of the Debian-specific utilities in debian/utils? This is just vanity. Please, ship the upstream software, not your own. I won't insult the maintainer's job that easily. Their goal is to offer a better user experience. They do not modify the original behavior of the project (mldonkey). Feel free to not use them. -- Mehdi Dogguy http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~dogguy/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#484674: mldonkey: Packaging too complex
Hi, Sorry for the late reply. On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 11:05:41AM +0200, spiral voice wrote: Why does mldonkey-server need an init script? Yes, it's a daemon, but that is merely an implementation detail. When it comes down to it, mldonkey is a *p2p client*. It should be run by normal users when they want to connect to a p2p network. YVMV, but MLDonkey is also designed to work as a P2P service, some people even use it on dedicated download servers, this is especially true since MLDonkey contains build-in multiuser functionality. Hmm. According to the mldonkey website, it is The p2p client for Linux/Unix/Windows!. Can you point me to some documentation of the multiuser functionality? Why the special make invocations? The configure script suggests running `make', but debian/rules runs `make utils opt' or some such nonsense. It fails when I try to build the version from intrepid on my hardy box (after backporting and installing the dependencies), even though just plain `make' runs perfectly. You may have hit an upstream bug, please post the error messages you are seeing with running make utils opt. I just tested ./configure make utils opt and it compiled w/o errors. Right, it seems to depend on the system. But upstream doesn't recommend running `make utils opt', they recommend running just `make', so it seems senseless to bring the problem to them. -Forest -- Forest Bond http://www.alittletooquiet.net http://www.pytagsfs.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#484674: mldonkey: Packaging too complex
Hi, On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:14:25PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote: On 0, Forest Bond for...@alittletooquiet.net wrote: mldonkey packaging is way to complicated and bloated. This is unnecessary and causes bugs. * Why so many debconf questions? You're right. Maybe we can simplify this a bit. We are currently working on this problem. This is the only relevant criticism in this bug report. Thus, I'm merging this bug with a similar one. I'm not sure that it is the only relevant criticism just because it's the only one you agree with. * Why all of the Debian-specific utilities in debian/utils? This is just vanity. Please, ship the upstream software, not your own. I won't insult the maintainer's job that easily. Their goal is to offer a better user experience. They do not modify the original behavior of the project (mldonkey). Feel free to not use them. I was too harsh, you are right. I apologize. However, creating non-standard, distribution-specific ways to use the upstream software does not improve the user experience, in my mind. It makes the user harder for upstream to support, and so should not be done lightly. Thanks, Forest -- Forest Bond http://www.alittletooquiet.net http://www.pytagsfs.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#484674: mldonkey: Packaging too complex
Hi, Forest Bond schrieb: Can you point me to some documentation of the multiuser functionality? http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/mldonkey/distrib/multiuser.txt?root=mldonkeyview=markup Cheers, spiralvoice __ Nur bis 16.03.! DSL-Komplettanschluss inkl. WLAN-Modem für nur 17,95 EURO/mtl. + 1 Monat gratis!* http://dsl.web.de/?ac=OM.AD.AD008K15039B7069a -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#484674: mldonkey: Packaging too complex
Hi, Why does mldonkey-server need an init script? Yes, it's a daemon, but that is merely an implementation detail. When it comes down to it, mldonkey is a *p2p client*. It should be run by normal users when they want to connect to a p2p network. YVMV, but MLDonkey is also designed to work as a P2P service, some people even use it on dedicated download servers, this is especially true since MLDonkey contains build-in multiuser functionality. Why the special make invocations? The configure script suggests running `make', but debian/rules runs `make utils opt' or some such nonsense. It fails when I try to build the version from intrepid on my hardy box (after backporting and installing the dependencies), even though just plain `make' runs perfectly. You may have hit an upstream bug, please post the error messages you are seeing with running make utils opt. I just tested ./configure make utils opt and it compiled w/o errors. Greetings, spiralvoice _ Neu: Mit Live Search Ihre Stadt in der Vogelperspektive! http://maps.live.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#484674: mldonkey: Packaging too complex
Package: mldonkey Severity: normal mldonkey packaging is way to complicated and bloated. This is unnecessary and causes bugs. * Why does mldonkey-server need an init script? Yes, it's a daemon, but that is merely an implementation detail. When it comes down to it, mldonkey is a *p2p client*. It should be run by normal users when they want to connect to a p2p network. * Why so many debconf questions? * Why all of the Debian-specific utilities in debian/utils? This is just vanity. Please, ship the upstream software, not your own. * Why the special make invocations? The configure script suggests running `make', but debian/rules runs `make utils opt' or some such nonsense. It fails when I try to build the version from intrepid on my hardy box (after backporting and installing the dependencies), even though just plain `make' runs perfectly. All of these things make the package much more complicated than it should be. Simply trying to backport the package is a process that takes several hours. What is the justification for all of this complexity? -- System Information: Debian Release: lenny/sid APT prefers hardy-updates APT policy: (500, 'hardy-updates'), (500, 'hardy-security'), (500, 'hardy-backports'), (500, 'hardy'), (500, 'gutsy') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.22-14-generic (SMP w/1 CPU core) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash -- Forest Bond http://www.alittletooquiet.net http://www.pytagsfs.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
