Re: getting pinta updated in Debian
On Fr 04 Mär 2022 01:39:31 CET, Mirco Bauer wrote: I am not sure if you can build dotnet from source at this point, maybe it is possible by now. I could never find time to follow-up on this as I started to work for demanding startups that leave little to no spare time. If you are interested to get dotnet into Debian I am still available for mentoring and going in the right direction, I would like to see dotnet packaged still, it is a fantastic software development platform. The #debian-cli IRC channel on OFTC is the place where the Mono and .NET friends hang out, so feel invited to join us. Thanks for your info and the mentoring offer. I will wait some more time if and what others contribute to this thread and then decide on how much effort I can spend on this. It is an effort that definitely goes beyond the customer request. (Sigh...). Mike -- DAS-NETZWERKTEAM c\o Technik- und Ökologiezentrum Eckernförde Mike Gabriel, Marienthaler Str. 17, 24340 Eckernförde mobile: +49 (1520) 1976 148 landline: +49 (4351) 850 8940 GnuPG Fingerprint: 9BFB AEE8 6C0A A5FF BF22 0782 9AF4 6B30 2577 1B31 mail: mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de pgpPPyKYZleCo.pgp Description: Digitale PGP-Signatur
Re: getting pinta updated in Debian
Hi Jo, On Fr 04 Mär 2022 02:16:05 CET, Jo Shields wrote: I know that team has been engaging with someone at Canonical about Ubuntu packaging, I can reach out to find out who that is, and see whether that work could be uploaded to Debian first as a matter of course yes, please do. It would be awesome if someone has already worked on packaging that is +/- suitable for Debian. Plus: thanks for the overall info. Mike -- DAS-NETZWERKTEAM c\o Technik- und Ökologiezentrum Eckernförde Mike Gabriel, Marienthaler Str. 17, 24340 Eckernförde mobile: +49 (1520) 1976 148 landline: +49 (4351) 850 8940 GnuPG Fingerprint: 9BFB AEE8 6C0A A5FF BF22 0782 9AF4 6B30 2577 1B31 mail: mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de pgpNEma2M9yYt.pgp Description: Digitale PGP-Signatur
RE: getting pinta updated in Debian
“source-build” is the project within Microsoft which aims to produce “upstream tarballs” in a sufficiently from-source form to satisfy FOSS distributions. Fedora has had dotnet for a while as a result, a collaboration between the source-build team in Utah and a distributed set of folks at Red Hat (Fedora’s from-source requirements are slightly different from the DFSG, but not meaningfully so). Roughly speaking, source-build has to reconcile about 30 separate dotnet repos, in order to produce an upstream-equivalent dotnet SDK. I know that team has been engaging with someone at Canonical about Ubuntu packaging, I can reach out to find out who that is, and see whether that work could be uploaded to Debian first as a matter of course Sent from Mail for Windows From: Mirco Bauer Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 7:57 PM To: Mike Gabriel Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org; debian-...@lists.debian.org; 979...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: getting pinta updated in Debian Hello Mike, thanks for your interest in getting pinta updated in Debian. The other day I noticed as well that pinta is outdated in Debian and it does not look like there is a simple way forward, unfortunately. Pinta has moved to the dotnet runtime which is not packaged in Debian. Many years ago I worked on getting the dotnet core runtime into Debian (just as I did to get Mono into Debian back then) but I hit hard problems that prevented it. The dotnet runtime could not be build from source which is not compliant with the DFSG. Microsoft had shown interest and I have advised them on how to make dotnet DFSG compliant so it could be included in Debian and Ubuntu, but it was clear it won't happen overnight as building cleanly from source (bootstrapping a runtime) isn't trivial and needed a major effort on the upstream side. Later this effort deepened between Microsoft and Redhat to make dotnet buildable from source, which is great. I am not sure if you can build dotnet from source at this point, maybe it is possible by now. I could never find time to follow-up on this as I started to work for demanding startups that leave little to no spare time. If you are interested to get dotnet into Debian I am still available for mentoring and going in the right direction, I would like to see dotnet packaged still, it is a fantastic software development platform. The #debian-cli IRC channel on OFTC is the place where the Mono and .NET friends hang out, so feel invited to join us. Best regards, Mirco Bauer Chief InfoSec Officer mirco.ba...@eqonex.com https://group.eqonex.com/ FOSS Hacker mee...@meebey.net https://www.meebey.net/ Debian Developer mee...@debian.org https://www.debian.org/ GNOME Foundation Member mmmba...@gnome.org https://www.gnome.org/ .NET Foundation Advisory Council Member https://www.dotnetfoundation.org/ PGP-Key ID 0x7127E5ABEEF946C8 https://meebey.net/pubkey.asc On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 4:05 AM Mike Gabriel wrote: Hi all, I am currently looking into requirements of getting pinta in Debian updated to the latest upstream version. My problem: I am not at all a .NET developer or maintainer, so this is a piece of work with a steep learning curve for me. What I found now are AUR packages for pinta (and its dependency dotnet-runtime) that are quite up-to-date: https://archlinux.org/packages/community/any/pinta/ https://archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/dotnet-core/ It basically looks like we need to get dotnet-core into Debian and then update pinta to latest 2.0.2 upstream release and we are done. However, dotnet-core seems to be massive and I wonder if that can be avoided as its API is provided by something else in Debian. I am asking this possibly stupid question because I am astounded that noone has ever packaged dotnet-core, filed an RFP or ITP for it, etc. Furthermore, it seems that dotnet-core has been licensed under a DFSG-compliant MIT license variant [1]. Do I miss anything here? Is there a hidden blocker? Or is it just that noone has been interested in dotnet-core (and/or a pinta version bump), so far / recently? Thanks for feedback! Mike [1] https://github.com/dotnet/core/blob/main/LICENSE.TXT -- DAS-NETZWERKTEAM c\o Technik- und Ökologiezentrum Eckernförde Mike Gabriel, Marienthaler Str. 17, 24340 Eckernförde mobile: +49 (1520) 1976 148 landline: +49 (4351) 850 8940 GnuPG Fingerprint: 9BFB AEE8 6C0A A5FF BF22 0782 9AF4 6B30 2577 1B31 mail: mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de
Re: getting pinta updated in Debian
Hello Stephen, Hello Jo! thanks for sharing your thoughts on the tricky dotnet package ecosystem which I can fully relate to. In the Debian Mono Group we discussed these many times on the available options how we can overcome these new packaging challenges. The problem indeed starts with a shift of how code is distributed. Developers no longer publish source archives (.zip, .tar.gz, etc) but they publish binary packages into a language specific package format and ecosystem (e.g. nuget, pip, etc). Where the users of their code then use nuget to consume these. The best solution we could find is an approach that Debian Perl has taken with CPAN. So you would basically assist creating debian packages from nuget packages with Debian tools (to be developed). For Perl there is dh-make-perl [0] doing exactly this. So this shift in the ecosystem is solvable but it will take some weeks of work to get there. [0]: https://packages.debian.org/sid/dh-make-perl Best regards, Mirco Bauer Chief InfoSec Officer mirco.ba...@eqonex.com https://group.eqonex.com/ FOSS Hacker mee...@meebey.net https://www.meebey.net/ Debian Developermee...@debian.org https://www.debian.org/ GNOME Foundation Member mmmba...@gnome.org https://www.gnome.org/ .NET Foundation Advisory Council Member https://www.dotnetfoundation.org/ PGP-Key ID 0x7127E5ABEEF946C8 https://meebey.net/pubkey.asc On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 5:24 AM Stephen Shaw wrote: > On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 12:47 PM Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > > > Timotheus Pokorra dijo [Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 10:35:36PM +0100]: > > > Hello Mike, > > > > > > I have some experience with Mono packaging in Fedora. > > > I know of the dotnet SIG in Fedora. They made a massive effort, > involving > > > Microsoft employees, to get dotnet core built according to the Fedora > rules > > > (build from source, not using external files, etc). > > > (...) > > > It is really difficult to package dotnet packages, because of all the > nuget > > > dependancies. We have not figured that out for Fedora. Or did not have > the > > > volunteers yet to do that. > > > > > > Alternatives to dotnet: Mono, dotgnu > > > https://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/ > > > "As of December 2012, the DotGNU project has been decommissioned." > > > > > > Mono: it is the alternative to .NET Framework, which Microsoft will > support > > > for many years to come. But the new stuff is happening in dotnet, so > > > projects like Pinta are moving from Mono to dotnet. > > > > Uff... .NET -- A reimplementation of the "write once, debug > > everywhere" fiasco :-( >^^ Seems like a horribly useless and uninformed clickbait comment > > > Warning: I'm going to brain dump a bunch of random thoughts :) > > Mono is actually now part of dotnet: > https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/tree/main/src/mono > dotnet provides two different runtimes. coreclr and monovm both of > which are largely xplat. > The traditional .NET Framework and Mono are going away in favor of > dotnet. Still largely the same runtime, base class libraries, etc that > .NET developers are used to + all the new features and it's continued > evolution, etc > > tl;dr; from my perspective > I've felt like this has been a growing problem with how Linux does > packaging, right or wrong doesn't matter. The fact still remains that > this'll continually become more challenging and/or impossible problem > at some point. Most, if not all, of the current popular programming > languages have some sort of packaging system: > C#, nuget > java, maven > ruby, rubygems > python, pip > node.js, npm > php, pakcagist > js, bower > > to name a few. > > The current approach is to rebuild ever language from source, but most > devs don't want to re-implement a whole bunch of functionality they > can get with the push of a button by adding some "package". As > programs get more complex there are more libraries being written, > shared, and included. Unless you can completely automate the building > of every package this breaks down really fast. > > Maybe its time to re-evaluate this system? > Could we provide some kind of sandbox that builds these projects and > allows for an internet connection to import all of the "packages"? Is > it possible to ensure that the packages are exclusively pulled from > "authorized" sources? > > Cheers, > Stephen > >
Re: getting pinta updated in Debian
Hello Mike, thanks for your interest in getting pinta updated in Debian. The other day I noticed as well that pinta is outdated in Debian and it does not look like there is a simple way forward, unfortunately. Pinta has moved to the dotnet runtime which is not packaged in Debian. Many years ago I worked on getting the dotnet core runtime into Debian (just as I did to get Mono into Debian back then) but I hit hard problems that prevented it. The dotnet runtime could not be build from source which is not compliant with the DFSG <https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines>. Microsoft had shown interest and I have advised them on how to make dotnet DFSG compliant so it could be included in Debian and Ubuntu, but it was clear it won't happen overnight as building cleanly from source (bootstrapping a runtime) isn't trivial and needed a major effort on the upstream side. Later this effort deepened between Microsoft and Redhat to make dotnet buildable from source, which is great. I am not sure if you can build dotnet from source at this point, maybe it is possible by now. I could never find time to follow-up on this as I started to work for demanding startups that leave little to no spare time. If you are interested to get dotnet into Debian I am still available for mentoring and going in the right direction, I would like to see dotnet packaged still, it is a fantastic software development platform. The #debian-cli IRC channel on OFTC is the place where the Mono and .NET friends hang out, so feel invited to join us. Best regards, Mirco Bauer Chief InfoSec Officer mirco.ba...@eqonex.com https://group.eqonex.com/ FOSS Hacker mee...@meebey.net https://www.meebey.net/ Debian Developermee...@debian.org https://www.debian.org/ GNOME Foundation Member mmmba...@gnome.org https://www.gnome.org/ .NET Foundation Advisory Council Member https://www.dotnetfoundation.org/ PGP-Key ID 0x7127E5ABEEF946C8 https://meebey.net/pubkey.asc On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 4:05 AM Mike Gabriel < mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de> wrote: > Hi all, > > I am currently looking into requirements of getting pinta in Debian > updated to the latest upstream version. > > My problem: I am not at all a .NET developer or maintainer, so this is > a piece of work with a steep learning curve for me. > > What I found now are AUR packages for pinta (and its dependency > dotnet-runtime) that are quite up-to-date: > > https://archlinux.org/packages/community/any/pinta/ > https://archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/dotnet-core/ > > It basically looks like we need to get dotnet-core into Debian and > then update pinta to latest 2.0.2 upstream release and we are done. > > However, dotnet-core seems to be massive and I wonder if that can be > avoided as its API is provided by something else in Debian. I am > asking this possibly stupid question because I am astounded that noone > has ever packaged dotnet-core, filed an RFP or ITP for it, etc. > > Furthermore, it seems that dotnet-core has been licensed under a > DFSG-compliant MIT license variant [1]. > > Do I miss anything here? Is there a hidden blocker? Or is it just that > noone has been interested in dotnet-core (and/or a pinta version > bump), so far / recently? > > Thanks for feedback! > Mike > > [1] https://github.com/dotnet/core/blob/main/LICENSE.TXT > -- > > DAS-NETZWERKTEAM > c\o Technik- und Ökologiezentrum Eckernförde > Mike Gabriel, Marienthaler Str. 17, 24340 Eckernförde > mobile: +49 (1520) 1976 148 > landline: +49 (4351) 850 8940 > > GnuPG Fingerprint: 9BFB AEE8 6C0A A5FF BF22 0782 9AF4 6B30 2577 1B31 > mail: mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de > >
Re: getting pinta updated in Debian
On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 12:47 PM Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > Timotheus Pokorra dijo [Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 10:35:36PM +0100]: > > Hello Mike, > > > > I have some experience with Mono packaging in Fedora. > > I know of the dotnet SIG in Fedora. They made a massive effort, involving > > Microsoft employees, to get dotnet core built according to the Fedora rules > > (build from source, not using external files, etc). > > (...) > > It is really difficult to package dotnet packages, because of all the nuget > > dependancies. We have not figured that out for Fedora. Or did not have the > > volunteers yet to do that. > > > > Alternatives to dotnet: Mono, dotgnu > > https://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/ > > "As of December 2012, the DotGNU project has been decommissioned." > > > > Mono: it is the alternative to .NET Framework, which Microsoft will support > > for many years to come. But the new stuff is happening in dotnet, so > > projects like Pinta are moving from Mono to dotnet. > > Uff... .NET -- A reimplementation of the "write once, debug > everywhere" fiasco :-( ^^ Seems like a horribly useless and uninformed clickbait comment Warning: I'm going to brain dump a bunch of random thoughts :) Mono is actually now part of dotnet: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/tree/main/src/mono dotnet provides two different runtimes. coreclr and monovm both of which are largely xplat. The traditional .NET Framework and Mono are going away in favor of dotnet. Still largely the same runtime, base class libraries, etc that .NET developers are used to + all the new features and it's continued evolution, etc tl;dr; from my perspective I've felt like this has been a growing problem with how Linux does packaging, right or wrong doesn't matter. The fact still remains that this'll continually become more challenging and/or impossible problem at some point. Most, if not all, of the current popular programming languages have some sort of packaging system: C#, nuget java, maven ruby, rubygems python, pip node.js, npm php, pakcagist js, bower to name a few. The current approach is to rebuild ever language from source, but most devs don't want to re-implement a whole bunch of functionality they can get with the push of a button by adding some "package". As programs get more complex there are more libraries being written, shared, and included. Unless you can completely automate the building of every package this breaks down really fast. Maybe its time to re-evaluate this system? Could we provide some kind of sandbox that builds these projects and allows for an internet connection to import all of the "packages"? Is it possible to ensure that the packages are exclusively pulled from "authorized" sources? Cheers, Stephen
Re: getting pinta updated in Debian
Timotheus Pokorra dijo [Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 10:35:36PM +0100]: > Hello Mike, > > I have some experience with Mono packaging in Fedora. > I know of the dotnet SIG in Fedora. They made a massive effort, involving > Microsoft employees, to get dotnet core built according to the Fedora rules > (build from source, not using external files, etc). > (...) > It is really difficult to package dotnet packages, because of all the nuget > dependancies. We have not figured that out for Fedora. Or did not have the > volunteers yet to do that. > > Alternatives to dotnet: Mono, dotgnu > https://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/ > "As of December 2012, the DotGNU project has been decommissioned." > > Mono: it is the alternative to .NET Framework, which Microsoft will support > for many years to come. But the new stuff is happening in dotnet, so > projects like Pinta are moving from Mono to dotnet. Uff... .NET -- A reimplementation of the "write once, debug everywhere" fiasco :-(
Re: getting pinta updated in Debian
Hello Mike, I have some experience with Mono packaging in Fedora. I know of the dotnet SIG in Fedora. They made a massive effort, involving Microsoft employees, to get dotnet core built according to the Fedora rules (build from source, not using external files, etc). https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/DotNet https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DotNet You can find the spec files here: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dotnet6.0/tree/rawhide I don't know enough about Debian packaging so I don't know if that is of any help. Pinta has not been updated to version 2.0.2 for Fedora yet, see this discussion: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/dotnet-...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/2W7DBQ6E5FXSHVMKG7SUT4YZAYPXZUEC/ It is really difficult to package dotnet packages, because of all the nuget dependancies. We have not figured that out for Fedora. Or did not have the volunteers yet to do that. Alternatives to dotnet: Mono, dotgnu https://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/ "As of December 2012, the DotGNU project has been decommissioned." Mono: it is the alternative to .NET Framework, which Microsoft will support for many years to come. But the new stuff is happening in dotnet, so projects like Pinta are moving from Mono to dotnet. I hope this helps, Timotheus I am currently looking into requirements of getting pinta in Debian updated to the latest upstream version. My problem: I am not at all a .NET developer or maintainer, so this is a piece of work with a steep learning curve for me. What I found now are AUR packages for pinta (and its dependency dotnet-runtime) that are quite up-to-date: https://archlinux.org/packages/community/any/pinta/ https://archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/dotnet-core/ It basically looks like we need to get dotnet-core into Debian and then update pinta to latest 2.0.2 upstream release and we are done. However, dotnet-core seems to be massive and I wonder if that can be avoided as its API is provided by something else in Debian. I am asking this possibly stupid question because I am astounded that noone has ever packaged dotnet-core, filed an RFP or ITP for it, etc. Furthermore, it seems that dotnet-core has been licensed under a DFSG-compliant MIT license variant [1]. Do I miss anything here? Is there a hidden blocker? Or is it just that noone has been interested in dotnet-core (and/or a pinta version bump), so far / recently? Thanks for feedback! Mike [1] https://github.com/dotnet/core/blob/main/LICENSE.TXT
Re: getting pinta updated in Debian
On Mi 02 Mär 2022 22:35:36 CET, Timotheus Pokorra wrote: [...] I hope this helps, Timotheus Yes, it does indeed help. Thanks for the write-up. Mike -- DAS-NETZWERKTEAM c\o Technik- und Ökologiezentrum Eckernförde Mike Gabriel, Marienthaler Str. 17, 24340 Eckernförde mobile: +49 (1520) 1976 148 landline: +49 (4351) 850 8940 GnuPG Fingerprint: 9BFB AEE8 6C0A A5FF BF22 0782 9AF4 6B30 2577 1B31 mail: mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de pgpfSTo1C95Vm.pgp Description: Digitale PGP-Signatur
getting pinta updated in Debian
Hi all, I am currently looking into requirements of getting pinta in Debian updated to the latest upstream version. My problem: I am not at all a .NET developer or maintainer, so this is a piece of work with a steep learning curve for me. What I found now are AUR packages for pinta (and its dependency dotnet-runtime) that are quite up-to-date: https://archlinux.org/packages/community/any/pinta/ https://archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/dotnet-core/ It basically looks like we need to get dotnet-core into Debian and then update pinta to latest 2.0.2 upstream release and we are done. However, dotnet-core seems to be massive and I wonder if that can be avoided as its API is provided by something else in Debian. I am asking this possibly stupid question because I am astounded that noone has ever packaged dotnet-core, filed an RFP or ITP for it, etc. Furthermore, it seems that dotnet-core has been licensed under a DFSG-compliant MIT license variant [1]. Do I miss anything here? Is there a hidden blocker? Or is it just that noone has been interested in dotnet-core (and/or a pinta version bump), so far / recently? Thanks for feedback! Mike [1] https://github.com/dotnet/core/blob/main/LICENSE.TXT -- DAS-NETZWERKTEAM c\o Technik- und Ökologiezentrum Eckernförde Mike Gabriel, Marienthaler Str. 17, 24340 Eckernförde mobile: +49 (1520) 1976 148 landline: +49 (4351) 850 8940 GnuPG Fingerprint: 9BFB AEE8 6C0A A5FF BF22 0782 9AF4 6B30 2577 1B31 mail: mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de pgpkJJb8FMAso.pgp Description: Digitale PGP-Signatur
