Re: What should go into How Software Producers can distribute their products directly in .deb format?
On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 02:38, Osamu Aoki wrote: On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 10:29:38PM +0100, Aaron Isotton wrote: Hi, (sorry for the overlong subject). I originally sent this to debian-doc but I got no answers, so I thought I'd post it here too. Because debian-doc was busy discussing other things and your proposed document had not much negatives to flame about :) If it is long detailed HOWTO, it deserves to be a separate document. If it is short pointers and references, maybe you can add it to debian Reference. Disagree. I understand that the document should be for jonny-random-company who just wants to make his (proprietary) Software available to as many Linux users as possible and so he looks for a quick way to create .debs. I doubt these people don't want to look into the Debian Reference (because they don't care for Debian), they want a self-contained HOWTO (yes, some duplication would probably be necessary). Of course, it comes down to the question if 'Debian' wants this or not. I'd be in favor of such a document - although probably many Debian developers won't use such software, many users may want to. And having Debian on the list of supported distributions always sounds fine. (Even if they write Debian and really mean only Debian i386). Visibility doesn't hurt here. cheers -- vbi -- this email is protected by a digital signature: http://fortytwo.ch/gpg NOTE: keyserver bugs! get my key here: https://fortytwo.ch/gpg/92082481 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: What should go into How Software Producers can distribute their products directly in .deb format?
On Sunday 08 December 2002 20:00, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 07:03:05PM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: Which is why I ask for the second option -- a tarball. Let Debian, Gentoo, BSD, whoever do their own packaging. This includes any of those groups' users. Debian wont package most of the non free software. But it gives us the option. It also makes it easier to write installer packages like the real networks one without mucking with rpms.
Re: What should go into How Software Producers can distribute their products directly in .deb format?
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: It makes sense for the debian user, dont u think? I think not. Debian packages from *anywhere* are not under control of BTS and as a consequence they have no quality assurance. If the software is interesting for Debian users it should be integrated into Debian. The manual the poster was intended to write can be short: Build a lintian + bug free package and find a sponsor to upload. Otherwise Debian user won't even notice the fine software. Kind regards Andreas.
Re: What should go into How Software Producers can distribute their products directly in .deb format?
* Sean 'Shaleh' Perry | In the end it makes very little sense for a3rd party to provide | debs. The LSB requires rpm support only. Personally I would be | happy if they released a rpm for compliance and a tarball (binary or | source as they wish) for everyone else. I disagree with this, I find it great that, say, Opera provides policy-compliant aptable Debian packages. -- Tollef Fog Heen,''`. UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' : `. `' `-
Re: What should go into How Software Producers can distribute their products directly in .deb format?
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 06:06:41PM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: I'm interested in writing the How Software Producers can distribute their products directly in .deb format manual, as listed on http://www.debian.org/doc/devel-manuals. I thought to write the following, more or less: In the end it makes very little sense for a3rd party to provide debs. The LSB requires rpm support only. Personally I would be happy if they released a rpm for compliance and a tarball (binary or source as they wish) for everyone else. This document would be good if anything, for the sole purpose of getting .debs registered in software producers' heads. I also like it better if I can get a .deb instead of a .rpm that I have to alienize or a tarball that basically subverts the packaging system, and I don't see why we should discourage people from doing .debs anyhow. Aaron, as soon as you write something, send it over to -doc and it'll be committed to CVS. (The lack of response on -doc was most likely merely because nobody was disagreeing.) -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Re: What should go into How Software Producers can distribute their products directly in .deb format?
Andreas Tille [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think not. Debian packages from *anywhere* are not under control of BTS and as a consequence they have no quality assurance. An offhand observation: In my experience, merely having bugs handled by the BTS is no assurance of quality.
Re: What should go into How Software Producers can distribute their products directly in .deb format?
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 10:42:43AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Andreas Tille [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think not. Debian packages from *anywhere* are not under control of BTS and as a consequence they have no quality assurance. An offhand observation: In my experience, merely having bugs handled by the BTS is no assurance of quality. Too true. One only hopes that being given higher visibility, the chances of a bug in the BTS being dealt with are somewhat better than that of a bug in a random deb out there in the ether. Ben -- nSLUG http://www.nslug.ns.ca [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ pgp key fingerprint = 7F DA 09 4B BA 2C 0D E0 1B B1 31 ED C6 A9 39 4F ] [ gpg key fingerprint = 395C F3A4 35D3 D247 1387 2D9E 5A94 F3CA 0B27 13C8 ]
Re: What should go into How Software Producers can distribute their products directly in .deb format?
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 10:29:38PM +0100, Aaron Isotton wrote: Hi, (sorry for the overlong subject). I originally sent this to debian-doc but I got no answers, so I thought I'd post it here too. Because debian-doc was busy discussing other things and your proposed document had not much negatives to flame about :) If it is long detailed HOWTO, it deserves to be a separate document. If it is short pointers and references, maybe you can add it to debian Reference. Also the packaging method itself is not on-topic in debian-doc. It is more here. I'm interested in writing the How Software Producers can distribute - Consider putting fast-changing libraries/programs into your package instead of depending on the ones shipped with debian. They could be installed into /usr/lib/package-name/. I am far from knowing anything about packaging or FHS, is not /opt/packagename/ or something like it the right place for everything for the package which needs to be separated from main system? You can do whatever in it? - If you've got only few and/or seldom updated programs, shipping the .debs will probably do. If you've got many and/or often updated programs, or just want to be cool, consider setting up your own package repository. I have very short hack memo in my Debian Reference for this. Also people has been posting their dinstall-like softwares. This is the basic idea for packages which can be adapted to the FHS in a reasonable way; but for some really large, closed-source and older programs that might be too difficult; it would probably be much easier to put them into their own directory, with their own bin, lib, and whatever other folders they need. I know that isn't the proper way to do it, but I'd prefer some program to be installed in this impure way than overwriting some other files or sprinkling the file system with mysterious configuration and cache files. Or maybe it'd be better to create directories such as /usr/bin/package-name/, /usr/lib/package-name and so on. I'm not too sure about this, though. Any ideas? What about /opt/? -- ~\^o^/~~~ ~\^.^/~~~ ~\^*^/~~~ ~\^_^/~~~ ~\^+^/~~~ ~\^:^/~~~ ~\^v^/~~~ + Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cupertino CA USA, GPG-key: A8061F32 .''`. Debian Reference: post-installation user's guide for non-developers : :' : http://qref.sf.net and http://people.debian.org/~osamu `. `' Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software --- Social Contract
What should go into How Software Producers can distribute their products directly in .deb format?
Hi, (sorry for the overlong subject). I originally sent this to debian-doc but I got no answers, so I thought I'd post it here too. I'm interested in writing the How Software Producers can distribute their products directly in .deb format manual, as listed on http://www.debian.org/doc/devel-manuals. I thought to write the following, more or less: - First, consider the license of your product. If it's DFSG-Compatible and of general interest, consider adding it to debian/main. That'd be the best solution because of all the things like the BTS and the worldwide mirrors. Or, if you don't want to do it yourself, ask for a packager on the mailing lists. - If it's not DFSG-Compatible, but of general interest and you'd want it into debian, consider adding it to debian/non-free. Or even better changing the license. - Otherwise, read the New Maintainer's Guide / Debian Policy and all the other relevant docs. Make a package using the normal debian tools, check it with lintian, try it, whatever. There are a few special issues, though. Unstable and testing are changing all the time; a closed-source package which isn't updated too often would probably quite soon get uninstallable because of some unsatisfied dependencies or break somehow. Thus, build your package for stable, but do not use strictly versioned dependencies (i.e., require an exact version), but only = dependencies. So there's chance that it'll be installable/run also on testing and unstable. - Consider putting fast-changing libraries/programs into your package instead of depending on the ones shipped with debian. They could be installed into /usr/lib/package-name/. - If you've got only few and/or seldom updated programs, shipping the .debs will probably do. If you've got many and/or often updated programs, or just want to be cool, consider setting up your own package repository. This is the basic idea for packages which can be adapted to the FHS in a reasonable way; but for some really large, closed-source and older programs that might be too difficult; it would probably be much easier to put them into their own directory, with their own bin, lib, and whatever other folders they need. I know that isn't the proper way to do it, but I'd prefer some program to be installed in this impure way than overwriting some other files or sprinkling the file system with mysterious configuration and cache files. Or maybe it'd be better to create directories such as /usr/bin/package-name/, /usr/lib/package-name and so on. I'm not too sure about this, though. Any ideas? Anything wrong with this? Improvements? Comments? Criticism? Thanks. -- Aaron Isotton http://www.isotton.com/ My GPG Public Key: http://www.isotton.com/gpg-public-key
Re: What should go into How Software Producers can distribute their products directly in .deb format?
On Sunday 08 December 2002 13:29, Aaron Isotton wrote: Hi, (sorry for the overlong subject). I originally sent this to debian-doc but I got no answers, so I thought I'd post it here too. I'm interested in writing the How Software Producers can distribute their products directly in .deb format manual, as listed on http://www.debian.org/doc/devel-manuals. I thought to write the following, more or less: In the end it makes very little sense for a3rd party to provide debs. The LSB requires rpm support only. Personally I would be happy if they released a rpm for compliance and a tarball (binary or source as they wish) for everyone else.
Re: What should go into How Software Producers can distribute their products directly in .deb format?
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 06:06:41PM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: In the end it makes very little sense for a3rd party to provide debs. It makes sense for the debian user, dont u think? Greetings Bernd -- (OO) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ( .. ) [EMAIL PROTECTED],linux.de,debian.org} http://home.pages.de/~eckes/ o--o *plush* 2048/93600EFD [EMAIL PROTECTED] +497257930613 BE5-RIPE (OO) When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl!
Re: What should go into How Software Producers can distribute their products directly in .deb format?
On Sunday 08 December 2002 18:12, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 06:06:41PM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: In the end it makes very little sense for a3rd party to provide debs. It makes sense for the debian user, dont u think? Which is why I ask for the second option -- a tarball. Let Debian, Gentoo, BSD, whoever do their own packaging. This includes any of those groups' users.
Re: What should go into How Software Producers can distribute their products directly in .deb format?
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 07:03:05PM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: Which is why I ask for the second option -- a tarball. Let Debian, Gentoo, BSD, whoever do their own packaging. This includes any of those groups' users. Debian wont package most of the non free software. Greetings Bernd -- (OO) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ( .. ) [EMAIL PROTECTED],linux.de,debian.org} http://home.pages.de/~eckes/ o--o *plush* 2048/93600EFD [EMAIL PROTECTED] +497257930613 BE5-RIPE (OO) When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl!
