Re: Bug#726533: RFS: 0install/2.3.3-2 [ITP] -- rename and split zeroinstall-injector package
On 2014-02-09 09:27, Vincent Cheng wrote: On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 6:33 AM, Thomas Leonard wrote: On 7 February 2014 22:18, Vincent Cheng wrote: On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 4:02 AM, Thomas Leonard wrote: Hi Vincent, Many thanks for uploading this. However, the package has been stuck in NEW for the last few weeks. I'm not sure what the problem is, but possibly it's because the 0install package didn't contain any files (it was just a meta-package for pulling in the GUI dependencies), which someone mentioned might be a problem. I've uploaded a new version now which puts the GUI plugin files in the "0install" package while leaving the rest in "0install-core": https://mentors.debian.net/package/zeroinstall-injector Any chance you could upload that version to (hopefully) unstick the process? Your updated package FTBFS in a clean sid pbuilder chroot; it looks like you might need to add unzip to build-depends? I've attached the build log. Oops. Sorry about that. I've uploaded a new version that now builds correctly under pbuilder. http://mentors.debian.net/package/zeroinstall-injector Built, signed, and uploaded, thanks! Hi Vincent, Sorry to bother you again, but do you know how long it will take to be approved? It has been more than 2 months now and the upload is still in NEW. Is there anything I can do to speed this along? http://packages.qa.debian.org/z/zeroinstall-injector.html Thanks, -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/lidmo9$v3j$1...@ger.gmane.org
Bug#726533: RFS: 0install/2.3.3-2 [ITP] -- rename and split zeroinstall-injector package
On 9 February 2014 09:27, Vincent Cheng wrote: > On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 6:33 AM, Thomas Leonard wrote: >> On 7 February 2014 22:18, Vincent Cheng wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 4:02 AM, Thomas Leonard wrote: >>>> Hi Vincent, >>>> >>>> Many thanks for uploading this. However, the package has been stuck in >>>> NEW for the last few weeks. I'm not sure what the problem is, but >>>> possibly it's because the 0install package didn't contain any files >>>> (it was just a meta-package for pulling in the GUI dependencies), >>>> which someone mentioned might be a problem. >>>> >>>> I've uploaded a new version now which puts the GUI plugin files in the >>>> "0install" package while leaving the rest in "0install-core": >>>> >>>> https://mentors.debian.net/package/zeroinstall-injector >>>> >>>> Any chance you could upload that version to (hopefully) unstick the >>>> process? >>> >>> Your updated package FTBFS in a clean sid pbuilder chroot; it looks >>> like you might need to add unzip to build-depends? I've attached the >>> build log. >> >> Oops. Sorry about that. >> >> I've uploaded a new version that now builds correctly under pbuilder. >> >> http://mentors.debian.net/package/zeroinstall-injector > > Built, signed, and uploaded, thanks! > > Some (somewhat pedantic) nitpicks for future uploads: > > - please be more verbose in d/changelog; e.g. mention that you've > added a bunch of new build dependencies to your package > - debian/patches/ is empty, remove it > - debian/copyright: similarly to your LGPL license header/appendix > text, you need to include that for the GPL as well since your debian > packaging is covered under GPL and not LGPL (alternatively, license > everything under the same license) > > And lintian has a fair bit to complain about: > > P: zeroinstall-injector source: debian-watch-may-check-gpg-signature > W: 0install-core: hardening-no-relro usr/bin/0alias > W: 0install-core: hardening-no-relro usr/bin/0desktop > W: 0install-core: hardening-no-relro usr/bin/0install > W: 0install-core: hardening-no-relro usr/bin/0launch > W: 0install-core: hardening-no-relro usr/bin/0store > W: 0install-core: hardening-no-relro usr/bin/0store-secure-add > P: 0install-core: no-upstream-changelog > I: 0install-core: package-contains-empty-directory usr/lib/0install.net/ > W: 0install-core: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/0alias > I: 0install-core: desktop-entry-lacks-keywords-entry > usr/share/applications/0install.desktop > W: 0install: hardening-no-relro usr/lib/0install.net/gui_gtk.cmxs > I: 0install: hardening-no-fortify-functions usr/lib/0install.net/gui_gtk.cmxs > I: 0install: capitalization-error-in-description GTK GTK+ > > (since you're upstream, you can easily fix some of these issues, e.g. > by signing your release tarballs with gpg, including a manpage for > /usr/bin/0alias) > > Regards, > Vincent Thanks! Note that some of these are false positives (it's up to the ocaml compiler whether it includes hardening or relies on its own static type and bounds checking). I'll get it to check the signature though. -- Dr Thomas Leonardhttp://0install.net/ GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 GPG: DA98 25AE CAD0 8975 7CDA BD8E 0713 3F96 CA74 D8BA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAG4opy8Z_tTKogTDHgdP=fw4mj3m9zg32u8meh+gxfvvomy...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#726533: RFS: 0install/2.3.3-2 [ITP] -- rename and split zeroinstall-injector package
On 7 February 2014 22:18, Vincent Cheng wrote: > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 4:02 AM, Thomas Leonard wrote: >> Hi Vincent, >> >> Many thanks for uploading this. However, the package has been stuck in >> NEW for the last few weeks. I'm not sure what the problem is, but >> possibly it's because the 0install package didn't contain any files >> (it was just a meta-package for pulling in the GUI dependencies), >> which someone mentioned might be a problem. >> >> I've uploaded a new version now which puts the GUI plugin files in the >> "0install" package while leaving the rest in "0install-core": >> >> https://mentors.debian.net/package/zeroinstall-injector >> >> Any chance you could upload that version to (hopefully) unstick the process? > > Your updated package FTBFS in a clean sid pbuilder chroot; it looks > like you might need to add unzip to build-depends? I've attached the > build log. Oops. Sorry about that. I've uploaded a new version that now builds correctly under pbuilder. http://mentors.debian.net/package/zeroinstall-injector -- Dr Thomas Leonardhttp://0install.net/ GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 GPG: DA98 25AE CAD0 8975 7CDA BD8E 0713 3F96 CA74 D8BA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAG4opy9NBXjxHcZDQJet0DJjUKw0bPbYh-VVJ8N8QZcv8jf=j...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#726533: RFS: 0install/2.3.3-2 [ITP] -- rename and split zeroinstall-injector package
On 18 January 2014 06:35, Vincent Cheng wrote: > Control: tag -1 moreinfo > > Hi, > > Would you consider changing the name of the source package back to > zeroinstall-injector? This won't impact end users (the binary package > is 0install now; that's what end users will see, and that's what > they'd install), but it makes this transition less of a hassle if you > revert to the same source package name. Done: https://mentors.debian.net/package/zeroinstall-injector Thanks, -- Dr Thomas Leonardhttp://0install.net/ GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 GPG: DA98 25AE CAD0 8975 7CDA BD8E 0713 3F96 CA74 D8BA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAG4opy_AbPoG0LZEAS-kjj=nmgew3zo6d9bjgj2rtdvz02d...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Bug#726533: RFS: 0install/2.3.3-2 [ITP] -- rename and split zeroinstall-injector package
On 2013-12-23 19:59, Vincent Bernat wrote: ❦ 23 décembre 2013 15:22 CET, Thomas Leonard : You are renaming the source package. Is it really necessary? This is possible, but it is a bit painful to manage. With a new source package, you need to issue a -1 version. This means to add an epoch to let your transitional package take over the previous binary package. Keeping the same source package name and just changing the binary package names would be far easier. OK, I've changed the source name back to how it was and uploaded the new version here: http://mentors.debian.net/package/zeroinstall-injector Can it be approved now? I didn't noticed that the non-core package does not contain any file. You don't need to make a new package just for that. Demotes the python-gtk2 dependency to a recommends (usually installed, but not mandatory) or a suggests (usually not installed). That's currently the case, but probably won't be for long. The next version (which is nearly ready) is written in OCaml rather than Python. At that point, I'll probably separate the GTK plugin from the main binary. I could keep it as a single package (I don't really mind). Would it trigger any warnings to include a binary that depends on symbols that aren't required dependencies of the package? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/l9ag6t$uhi$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: Bug#726533: RFS: 0install/2.3.3-2 [ITP] -- rename and split zeroinstall-injector package
On 2013-12-22 12:03, Vincent Bernat wrote: ❦ 22 décembre 2013 12:10 CET, Thomas Leonard : "ITP stands for Intend to package. These are packages which not exist in Debian yet. Such packages need to go through NEW. That is the queue on ftp-master for packages uploaded for the first time, which need to be reviewed first. This includes renames, packages moving between areas, and source-packages that build new binary packages." So, ITP seemed the right tag for a rename. Let me know if I need to do something else. To recap: I've been maintaining this package as a DM for several years; just I need someone to approve the rename as I don't have permission to do it myself. https://mentors.debian.net/package/0install Could someone explain what I need to do to get the new debs approved? You are renaming the source package. Is it really necessary? This is possible, but it is a bit painful to manage. With a new source package, you need to issue a -1 version. This means to add an epoch to let your transitional package take over the previous binary package. Keeping the same source package name and just changing the binary package names would be far easier. OK, I've changed the source name back to how it was and uploaded the new version here: http://mentors.debian.net/package/zeroinstall-injector Can it be approved now? Thanks, -- Dr Thomas Leonardhttp://0install.net/ GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 GPG: DA98 25AE CAD0 8975 7CDA BD8E 0713 3F96 CA74 D8BA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/l99guu$rnp$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: Bug#726533: RFS: 0install/2.3.3-2 [ITP] -- rename and split zeroinstall-injector package
On 2013-11-23 15:46, Thomas Leonard wrote: On 2013-11-16 22:26, Eriberto wrote: A doubt: where is the ITP bug??? Thanks! Regards, I'm not sure what you mean. Do I need to file a bug somewhere as well? According to http://mentors.debian.net/sponsor/rfs-howto: "ITP stands for Intend to package. These are packages which not exist in Debian yet. Such packages need to go through NEW. That is the queue on ftp-master for packages uploaded for the first time, which need to be reviewed first. This includes renames, packages moving between areas, and source-packages that build new binary packages." So, ITP seemed the right tag for a rename. Let me know if I need to do something else. To recap: I've been maintaining this package as a DM for several years; just I need someone to approve the rename as I don't have permission to do it myself. https://mentors.debian.net/package/0install Could someone explain what I need to do to get the new debs approved? Thanks, -- Dr Thomas Leonardhttp://0install.net/ GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 GPG: DA98 25AE CAD0 8975 7CDA BD8E 0713 3F96 CA74 D8BA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/l96hb3$67d$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: Bug#726533: RFS: 0install/2.3.3-2 [ITP] -- rename and split zeroinstall-injector package
On 2013-10-16 15:08, Thomas Leonard wrote:
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am a DM, maintaining the zeroinstall-injector package. I have split it into
separate packages to avoid pulling in GTK on headless servers. This saves
around 100 MB when deploying to a fresh server. Could someone check it and
approve the new package names? My previous mentor (Jens Peter Secher) is no
longer a DD.
Hi, could someone approve this package split?
I don't think there's anything complicated about this request - it's
just splitting and renaming an existing package. There shouldn't be any
problems with the new packages (but if there are, I'll fix them - I've
been maintaining this package for several years now).
[ I originally submitted this request in Sep 2012, but after six months
it got automatically deleted, so I'm hoping to avoid that happening
again: see http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=685998 ]
Thanks,
* Package name: 0install
Version : 2.3.3-2
Upstream Author : Thomas Leonard
* URL : http://0install.net/
* License : GNU Lesser General Public License 2.1
Section : admin
It now builds these binary packages:
0install - cross-distribution packaging system
0install-core - cross-distribution packaging system (non-GUI parts)
zeroinstall-injector - transitional package for 0install
I updated the name as "injector" is no longer used, and the main command is now
"0install".
To access further information about this package, please visit the
following URL:
http://mentors.debian.net/package/0install
Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:
dget -x
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/0/0install/0install_2.3.3-2.dsc
More information about 0install can be obtained from http://0install.net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/l81ki4$dnt$1...@ger.gmane.org
Bug#726533: RFS: 0install/2.3.3-2 [ITP] -- rename and split zeroinstall-injector package
I'm not sure what you mean. Do I need to file a bug somewhere as well? According to http://mentors.debian.net/sponsor/rfs-howto: "ITP stands for Intend to package. These are packages which not exist in Debian yet. Such packages need to go through NEW. That is the queue on ftp-master for packages uploaded for the first time, which need to be reviewed first. This includes renames, packages moving between areas, and source-packages that build new binary packages." So, ITP seemed the right tag for a rename. Let me know if I need to do something else. To recap: I've been maintaining this package as a DM for several years; just I need someone to approve the rename as I don't have permission to do it myself. https://mentors.debian.net/package/0install Thanks, -- Dr Thomas Leonardhttp://0install.net/ GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 GPG: DA98 25AE CAD0 8975 7CDA BD8E 0713 3F96 CA74 D8BA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cag4opy_ff0kuo5tlw6un0kbszg-agcjcmgyfkaehbczoe7+...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Bug#726533: RFS: 0install/2.3.3-2 [ITP] -- rename and split zeroinstall-injector package
[ sorry for the late reply; I didn't get an email notification for some reason ] On 2013-11-16 22:26, Eriberto wrote: A doubt: where is the ITP bug??? Thanks! Regards, I'm not sure what you mean. Do I need to file a bug somewhere as well? According to http://mentors.debian.net/sponsor/rfs-howto: "ITP stands for Intend to package. These are packages which not exist in Debian yet. Such packages need to go through NEW. That is the queue on ftp-master for packages uploaded for the first time, which need to be reviewed first. This includes renames, packages moving between areas, and source-packages that build new binary packages." So, ITP seemed the right tag for a rename. Let me know if I need to do something else. To recap: I've been maintaining this package as a DM for several years; just I need someone to approve the rename as I don't have permission to do it myself. https://mentors.debian.net/package/0install Thanks, -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/l6qil2$med$1...@ger.gmane.org
Bug#726533: RFS: 0install/2.3.3-2 [ITP] -- rename and split zeroinstall-injector package
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am a DM, maintaining the zeroinstall-injector package. I have split it into separate packages to avoid pulling in GTK on headless servers. This saves around 100 MB when deploying to a fresh server. Could someone check it and approve the new package names? My previous mentor (Jens Peter Secher) is no longer a DD. * Package name: 0install Version : 2.3.3-2 Upstream Author : Thomas Leonard * URL : http://0install.net/ * License : GNU Lesser General Public License 2.1 Section : admin It now builds these binary packages: 0install - cross-distribution packaging system 0install-core - cross-distribution packaging system (non-GUI parts) zeroinstall-injector - transitional package for 0install I updated the name as "injector" is no longer used, and the main command is now "0install". To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/0install Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/0/0install/0install_2.3.3-2.dsc More information about 0install can be obtained from http://0install.net Regards, Thomas Leonard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cag4opy_8jad3ma4hmn4wxulk_f_g5hifee7bbc9vueyoeeq...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#685998: RFS: 0install/1.11-1
On 7 September 2012 16:44, Thomas Leonard wrote:
> On 7 September 2012 16:38, Bart Martens wrote:
[...]
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>> The upstream source package name is still zeroinstall-injector.
>> http://0install.net/install-source.html
>> http://downloads.sf.net/project/zero-install/injector/1.11/zeroinstall-injector-1.11.tar.bz2
>>
>> I have not yet looked any further than that.
>
> I can rename it if necessary (1.12 will have the new name upstream),
> but I don't think this needs to hold up the Debian package split, does
> it?
>
> Note that this bug is linked from the front page of
> http://0install.net ("we need a sponsor from Debian to approve the
> change") if you need confirmation that upstream agrees with the
> rename.
Hi Bart,
Just to clarify: are you dealing with this package rename request, or
do I need to ask on the mentors list?
Thanks,
--
Dr Thomas Leonardhttp://0install.net/
GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1
GPG: DA98 25AE CAD0 8975 7CDA BD8E 0713 3F96 CA74 D8BA
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/CAG4opy8md9QaRdLnC=ZQ+GAU=ZSVGGvQgyb04az9xoi=dUwc=a...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#685998: RFS: 0install/1.11-1
On 7 September 2012 16:38, Bart Martens wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 10:25:12AM +0100, Thomas Leonard wrote:
>> On 2 September 2012 16:51, Bart Martens wrote:
>> > On Sun, Sep 02, 2012 at 03:42:50PM +, Bart Martens wrote:
>> >> Hi Peter,
>> >
>> > Sorry, my mistake, this should have been "Hi Thomas".
>>
>> Hi Bart,
>>
>> No problem. Are there any issues with the package split and rename?
>>
>> Splitting the package really helps on servers. e.g. ~100 MB of
>> dependencies for zeroinstall-injector vs ~1 MB for 0install-core on a
>> minimal system (with Python).
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> The upstream source package name is still zeroinstall-injector.
> http://0install.net/install-source.html
> http://downloads.sf.net/project/zero-install/injector/1.11/zeroinstall-injector-1.11.tar.bz2
>
> I have not yet looked any further than that.
I can rename it if necessary (1.12 will have the new name upstream),
but I don't think this needs to hold up the Debian package split, does
it?
Note that this bug is linked from the front page of
http://0install.net ("we need a sponsor from Debian to approve the
change") if you need confirmation that upstream agrees with the
rename.
Thanks,
--
Dr Thomas Leonardhttp://0install.net/
GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1
GPG: DA98 25AE CAD0 8975 7CDA BD8E 0713 3F96 CA74 D8BA
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/cag4opy86ypahz2vw1vefsf7bo-fiyuj9qfdnav7bukdwc14...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#685998: RFS: 0install/1.11-1
On 2 September 2012 16:51, Bart Martens wrote: > On Sun, Sep 02, 2012 at 03:42:50PM +, Bart Martens wrote: >> Hi Peter, > > Sorry, my mistake, this should have been "Hi Thomas". Hi Bart, No problem. Are there any issues with the package split and rename? Splitting the package really helps on servers. e.g. ~100 MB of dependencies for zeroinstall-injector vs ~1 MB for 0install-core on a minimal system (with Python). Thanks, -- Dr Thomas Leonardhttp://0install.net/ GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 GPG: DA98 25AE CAD0 8975 7CDA BD8E 0713 3F96 CA74 D8BA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cag4opy-k+3c62ruvtsb6w+69e2a+snbypmvzbczif9f0opk...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#685998: RFS: 0install/1.11-1
On Sep 2, 2012 4:42 PM, "Bart Martens" wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > The upstream source package name is still zeroinstall-injector. > http://0install.net/install-source.html > http://downloads.sf.net/project/zero-install/injector/1.11/zeroinstall-injector-1.11.tar.bz2 > > Regards, > > Bart Martens Hi Bart. I'm the upstream maintainer (as well as the Debian packager) so there's no problem with renaming it. I can rename the upstream tarball too if it helps. Thanks,
Bug#685998: RFS: 0install/1.11-1 [ITP] -- rename zeroinstall-injector package
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear Mentors, I am a DM, maintaining the zeroinstall-injector package. I have split it into separate packages to avoid pulling in GTK on headless servers. Could someone check it and approve the new package names? My previous mentor (Jens Peter Secher) is no longer a DD. It now builds these binary packages: 0install-core (contains the code) 0install (metapackage that depends on 0install-core and GTK) zeroinstall-injector (transitional package so that using the old package name still works) I updated the name as "injector" is no longer used, and the main command is now "0install". To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/0install Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/0/0install/0install_1.11-1.dsc More information about 0install can be obtained from http://0install.net. Regards, T. Leonard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120827131726.2666.51981.report...@avi.home
New sponsor required
Hi, The version of zeroinstall-injector in Sid is 0.29. I've made an update for 0.31: http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/sponsor-pkglist? action=details;package=zeroinstall-injector Could someone upload it for me? My previous sponsor (Steffen Joeris) is too busy at the moment and suggested I ask here for a new sponsor. Thanks, -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Prompt to install missing software?
On Sun, 27 May 2007 18:38:51 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > John Pye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> It just strikes me that there is a level of automation that would be >> really pretty simple to implement: "click here to install the >> missing package". > > This makes the invalid assumption that the user who receives this > dialogue box is in a position to install software. That's not the case > in a great variety of use cases for Debian. Exactly. You need a way to: - Download the files (with a GUI), - Check their signatures, - Store them somewhere (ideally where all users can share them, but without requiring users to trust each other), - Check for updates from time-to-time (ideally in the background). You can do this using Zero Install: http://0install.net/ -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: zeroinstall-injector
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 21:26:57 +, Thomas Leonard wrote: > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "zeroinstall-injector". [...] > For some recent articles about Zero Install, see: > > "Zero Install: An executable critique of native package systems" > http://specialreports.linux.com/article.pl?sid=07/02/15/0724206&tid=138 > > "Decentralised Installation Systems" > http://www.osnews.com/story.php/16956/Decentralised-Installation-Systems Note: Zero Install is now in Ubuntu/feisty: http://packages.ubuntu.com/feisty/admin/zeroinstall-injector Should I continue posting new Debian packages here, or would it be better to tell Debian users to use the Ubuntu package? -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFS: zeroinstall-injector
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "zeroinstall-injector". Package name: zeroinstall-injector Version : 0.26-1 Upstream Author : Thomas Leonard URL : http://0install.net/ License : LGPL Section : admin It builds these binary packages: zeroinstall-injector - run programs by URL The package is lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/z/zeroinstall-injector - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/z/zeroinstall-injector/zeroinstall-injector_0.26-1.dsc For some recent articles about Zero Install, see: "Zero Install: An executable critique of native package systems" http://specialreports.linux.com/article.pl?sid=07/02/15/0724206&tid=138 "Decentralised Installation Systems" http://www.osnews.com/story.php/16956/Decentralised-Installation-Systems -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: zeroinstall-injector
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:13:19 -0500, Richard Laager wrote: > On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 11:10 +0000, Thomas Leonard wrote: > > ... Thanks for your explanation. ... > >> http://0install.net/matrix.html > > The one thing I found particularly interesting is: > > "Conflict-free" > "If program A requires an old version of a library, and program B > requires a new version, A and B can both be installed and used at the > same time. The system will never refuse to install one program because > some other program is installed." > > You gave an example of user-mode-linux and GnuPG. > > Isn't this just an example of why properly using sonames is important? > There's no harm in having both libfoo1 and libfoo2 installed, and if you > need to upgrade libfoo1 from 1.0 to 1.1 to support an application, > everything else that needs libfoo 1.0 will continue to work with libfoo > 1.1, right? It was actually "libreadline5" that needed to be upgraded. In an ideal world, all versions of libreadline5 would be backwards compatible with all earlier versions of libreadline5, but for some reason it wasn't in this case. These things happen. As another example (where soname versioning wouldn't have helped), ROX-Filer 2.4.0 crashes when used with GTK >= 2.8.9 (2.8.8 is fine). This is because GTK started emitting a particular signal slightly earlier, before the filer had finished initialising a structure. Had GTK's range of allowed behaviour been fully described, and had both GTK and ROX-Filer been 100% bug-free, this wouldn't have happened, but in reality these things will continue to happen from time to time. To solve this, we had to track down the problem, fix it, redo our release testing, and make another release very quickly. In a conflict-free system like Zero Install, I could simply have marked ROX-Filer as requiring "GTK < 2.8.9" in its XML feed. Then our users could have continued with their existing version (no need to download the whole package again; just refresh the feed) without affecting whatever program had caused our users to install GTK 2.8.9 in the first place. We could then have spent a few days or a week doing proper release testing. So, in an ideal world, using sonames and multiple packages (libreadline4, libreadline5) does work, and this is the solution Autopackage proposes, but I don't think it's very realistic. This is especially so when you consider packages less actively maintained than those above. It took me quite a while to get FSV (fsv.sf.net) installed on Debian recently as I had to compile a required library manually and install to /usr/local. It used to install without problems a few years ago (last release was 1999). It would be worth preserving these older programs, by simply flagging them as needing older versions of the libraries. Hope that explains it better, -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: zeroinstall-injector
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:15:22 -0500, Richard Laager wrote: > On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 14:39 +0000, Thomas Leonard wrote: >> It builds these binary packages: >> zeroinstall-injector - run programs by URL > > This probably isn't related to getting your package in Debian, so if > this gets to be a larger discussion, we might need to take it off list, > but... > > This looks interesting. How is this different than autopackage? Is > there/ could there be some collaboration between your projects? This is a fair bit of collaboration already (both sites link to each other). Both projects want to support decentralised distribution, so that anyone can be part of the free software movement. i.e., a move away from the 'Cathedral' model, in which users get all their software from a single distribution, to a 'Bazaar' model, where anyone can participate. In more practical terms, having a separate person creating packages for each different distribution, handling bug-reports, and pushing out security fixes is wasteful duplication. As an upstream author, it is frustrating that one bug is fixed in the Gentoo package, a different bug in Debian, and OpenBSD's package is a year out-of-date, for example. It would make much more sense to have both bug fixes applied upstream and available to all. Both Autopackage and Zero Install require packages to be binary relocatable, and to work on as many systems as possible. Autopackage has developed a number of programs to help with this (e.g. binreloc and apbuild). These programs also work well with Zero Install. Where we differ is in the method of installation. Autopackage uses a method based on that of MS Windows: - The user downloads an executable script from a webpage and runs it. - The script makes some changes to the user's system, hopefully resulting in the program being installed without damaging anything. There are two obvious problems with this approach: 1. There are no security checks built in to the system. There is no place to check digital signatures or to warn the user about running software from untrusted sites. 2. The script may damage the system (e.g. by overwriting files installed by the distribution's package manager). Like Debian, Zero Install uses a separate piece of software to perform the installation: - Packages must be GPG signed. The user must confirm that they trust the key. I see the main role of distributions being to recommend software and keys, rather than actually packaging the software. - Each package extracts into its own directory. Nothing goes in /usr/bin, etc. Whereas Debian prevents conflicts by having a single, tightly-controlled repository and a well-defined policy for file locations, Zero Install removes the possibility for conflicts in the first place. Another difference is the way version conflicts are handled: - Debian takes advantage of its centrally-controlled repository to ensure that packages get updated together. E.g., if the new version of GnuPG requires a new version of libreadline, but user-mode-linux requires an older version, Debian will ensure that a new version of user-mode-linux is released so that GnuPG can be upgraded. - Zero Install installs each version of a program in its own directory, and resolves dependencies at run-time. Therefore it will run the new GnuPG against the new libreadline and user-mode-linux against the older version, simultaneously. In a distributed system, where some packages cannot be upgraded quickly, this is a big advantage. In fact, even Debian suffers from this problem a little... the example is exactly a problem I had a while back, forcing me to choose between having a secure GPG to check programs' signatures, or a secure sandbox environment in which to run them! - Autopackage does not seem to address this issue, except to push for good binary compatibility in libraries. A matrix comparing various packaging systems (including Zero Install and Autopackage) is here: http://0install.net/matrix.html A brief discussion of related systems is here: http://0install.net/links.html Thanks for your interest, -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFS: zeroinstall-injector
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "zeroinstall-injector". * Package name: zeroinstall-injector Version : 0.24-1 Upstream Author : Thomas Leonard * URL : http://0install.net * License : LGPL Section : admin It builds these binary packages: zeroinstall-injector - run programs by URL The package is lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/z/zeroinstall-injector - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/z/zeroinstall-injector/zeroinstall-injector_0.24-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: zeroinstall-injector
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 20:16:49 -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: > Thomas Leonard wrote: > >> But, there also seems to be python-support (dh_pysupport) and >> python-central. Would using one of these make my package more likely to be >> accepted? I'm not keen on using python-central because most of the apt-get >> failures I've had recently with other packages seem to be due to it. > > That is because python has gone through a transition recently. Please refer > to the python policy: > http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ > Hi Felipe, I've made a new release now using python-central (since Debian moved to 2.4 I need a second package for Debian/stable anyway). Would you mind checking it again? The package is lintian clean now. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/z/zeroinstall-injector - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/z/zeroinstall-injector/zeroinstall-injector_0.23-1.dsc Thanks! -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: zeroinstall-injector
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 23:58:58 -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: > Felipe Sateler wrote: > >> Thomas Leonard wrote: >> >>> But, there also seems to be python-support (dh_pysupport) and >>> python-central. Would using one of these make my package more likely to >>> be accepted? I'm not keen on using python-central because most of the >>> apt-get failures I've had recently with other packages seem to be due to >>> it. >> >> That is because python has gone through a transition recently. Please >> refer to the python policy: >> http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ > > Also, read http://wiki.debian.org/DebianPython/NewPolicy OK, it seems that depending on python-support or python-central will mean that my deb won't work on Debian/stable. Am I likely to get a sponsor if I use python-support (e.g., would you sponsor it)? Otherwise, maintaining two versions probably isn't worth it. Thanks, -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: zeroinstall-injector
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 15:15:01 +0100, Thomas Leonard wrote: > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "zeroinstall-injector". [...] > The package is lintian clean. > > The package can be found on mentors.debian.net at > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/z/zeroinstall-injector What's the recommended way of handing Python programs now? Zero Install uses Python's distutils package to install, and I'm using the dh_python script at the moment. But, there also seems to be python-support (dh_pysupport) and python-central. Would using one of these make my package more likely to be accepted? I'm not keen on using python-central because most of the apt-get failures I've had recently with other packages seem to be due to it. Thanks, -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFS: zeroinstall-injector
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "zeroinstall-injector". * Package name: zeroinstall-injector Version : 0.21-3 Upstream Author : Thomas Leonard * URL : http://0install.net/ * License : LGPL Section : admin It builds these binary packages: zeroinstall-injector - run programs by URL The package is lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net at http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/z/zeroinstall-injector Or just "apt-get source zeroinstall-injector" if your sources.list contains: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Long description: The Zero Install Injector makes it easy for users to install software without needing root privileges. It takes the URL of a program and runs it (downloading it first if necessary). Any dependencies of the program are fetched in the same way. The user controls which version of the program and its dependencies to use. Zero Install is a decentralised installation system (there is no central repository; all packages are identified by URLs), loosly-coupled (if different programs require different versions of a library then both versions are installed in parallel, without conflicts), and has an emphasis on security (all package descriptions are GPG-signed, and contain cryptographic hashes of the contents of each version). Each version of each program is stored in its own sub-directory within the Zero Install cache (nothing is installed to directories outside of the cache, such as /usr/bin) and no code from the package is run during install or uninstall. The system can automatically check for updates when software is run. Kind regards -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
