Re: Re: RFS: uwsgi
OFF: I wasn't subscribed to debian-mentors (before sending this message) and had to answer through clicking mailto link on debian-mentors archive page [1] and copying/pasting text from mentioned page. Hope, I clicked right link and answered in right thread. > uwsgi-python2.5 - fast, self-healing, developer-friendly WSGI server > (Python 2.5) > uwsgi-python2.6 - fast, self-healing, developer-friendly WSGI server > (Python 2.6) > uwsgi-python3.1 - Fast, self-healing, developer-friendly WSGI server > (Python 3.1) > > Please build a single package for all Python 2.X, and a single one for all > Python 3.X. (Unless you want people who take care of Python transitions to > hate you.) This is could be done. But before doing this, I want to clear up my original decision. uWSGI binary is linked with Python library (libpython), because it embeds whole interpreter and serves Python sources with it's own embedded interpreter. As I want to provide uWSGI for all Python version available in Debian repository, I've built three separate packages, which are linked with three separate libraries (libpython2.5, libpython2.6 and libpython3.1). If I'll build one package for Python2.X (say, uwsgi-python2), it'll be ought to including two uWSGI binary (uwsgi-python2.5 and uwsgi-python2.6) and be dependent on two Python libraries (libpython2.5 and libpython2.6). And these libraries are dependent on correspondent python packages (python2.5 and python2.6). So, this single package uwsgi-python2 will be (indirectly) dependent on python2.5 and python2.6 at the same time. I think, user will be confused when in process of installing package uwsgi-python2, all available Python 2.X versions will be also installed. Does it makes your advice arguable? [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2010/12/msg00333.html -- 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/4d0d4669.6030...@gmail.com
Re: RFS: uwsgi
* Leonid Borisenko , 2010-12-18, 22:55: uwsgi-python2.5 - fast, self-healing, developer-friendly WSGI server (Python 2.5) uwsgi-python2.6 - fast, self-healing, developer-friendly WSGI server (Python 2.6) uwsgi-python3.1 - Fast, self-healing, developer-friendly WSGI server (Python 3.1) Please build a single package for all Python 2.X, and a single one for all Python 3.X. (Unless you want people who take care of Python transitions to hate you.) -- Jakub Wilk -- 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/20101218214918.ga2...@jwilk.net
Re: RFS: uwsgi
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:08:20 +0300, Leo Borisenko wrote: > Hello David Hello Leo, >I'll be looking for another sponsor; but if I'll not found any, may I > (after getting rid of cdbs and reverting to plain debhelper) address my > request personally to you once again? Sure you can :) > [..] > > - you should remove debian/DEBIAN/ from the package > >I use source package format '3.0 (quilt)'. As I read on Debian wiki > [1] with this format debian directory from upstream tarball is > automatically replaced by content of Maintainer debian directory at > tarball unpack time. So manual removing of upstream debian directory is > unnecessary. > >But I'll send to upstream request to delete debian directory from > official tarball in following releases. > > [1] http://wiki.debian.org/Projects/DebSrc3.0 Ok, I've been hit by "unexpected behaviour" :) You're right, source 3.0 replaces the debian/ directory if present in the original tarball. What I missed is: I imported your package under git, so I had a debian/DEBIAN/ left there (git cannot track empty directories) after the replacement process. So, no real problem here, but good to read you contacted upstream. > > - debian/control: libapache2-mod-uwsgi, does it work only with > >apache2-mpm-worker, apache2-mpm-prefork and apache2-mpm-itk? Doesn't it > > work with other MPMs? > >You might want to give one default, and add an alternative to > > apache2-mpm. Example: > > > > apache2-mpm-worker | apache2-mpm > > > >So you get all other MPMs for free, and you still get the default one you > >chose (if no other is installed) :) > >I believe that mod_uwsgi works with any MPM. So I understand that > it's a helpful advice, but when I took it, I've got problems. > >MPM for Apache are mutually exclusive, so if I choose only one of > them as dependency, I've take a decision, that may conflicts with user > decision. Even dependency on apache2-mpm virtual package doesn't help. The dependency on the virtual package is satisfied if the user already has any package providing it. So, for instance, let's say you use "apache2-mpm-worker | apache2-mpm", and you have apache2-mpm-prefork installed, that dependency is fulfilled. >I don't know why, but on my system (Debian unstable), when I have > apache2-mpm-prefork installed, then installing of libapache2-mod-uwsgi > with dependency on (apache2-mpm-worker | apache2-mpm) or even just on > virtual package (apache2-mpm) conflicts with apache2-mpm-prefork. This is strange. I just created a test-package with equivs, with a dependency on "apache2-mpm-worker | apache2-mpm". I have -prefork installed. Look: $ dpkg --info equivs-dummy_1.0_all.deb | grep Depends Depends: apache2-mpm-worker | apache2-mpm $ LANG=C sudo dpkg -i equivs-dummy_1.0_all.deb Selecting previously deselected package equivs-dummy. (Reading database ... 330409 files and directories currently installed.) Unpacking equivs-dummy (from equivs-dummy_1.0_all.deb) ... Setting up equivs-dummy (1.0) ... $ Seems to work fine to me :) >And apache2-mpm-prefork is popular as dependency of libpache2-mod-php5. > >If I change (apache2-mpm-worker | apache2-mpm) to > (apache2-mpm-prefork | apache2-mpm), then it will conflicts with > apache2-mpm-worker etc. > >So I decide to make libapache2-mod-uwsgi Depends on (apache2) instead > of (apache2-mpm*). While the situation you're describing is a bit strange, you probably found an alternative solution -- congrats :) David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: uwsgi
Hello David On 10.06.2010 10:18, David Paleino wrote: Hello Leonid, On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 18:36:27 +0200, David Paleino wrote: > [RFS quote skipped] > While I'm interested in the package, I can't really sponsor it -- I have almost no knowledge of CDBS to help you there. Nevertheless, thank you for applying efforts to reviewing the package. I'll be looking for another sponsor; but if I'll not found any, may I (after getting rid of cdbs and reverting to plain debhelper) address my request personally to you once again? However, here are a couple of things you should fix :) New packages are uploaded to mentors.debian.net (URLs are the same as in the original RFS message). I've fix almost all of issues. But some of them are disputable. Although I understand that you may have no intention to enter into discussion about this, I leave my thoughts just FYI (and for other maillist readers). Every unmentioned issue is fixed just as you recommended. - you should remove debian/DEBIAN/ from the package I use source package format '3.0 (quilt)'. As I read on Debian wiki [1] with this format debian directory from upstream tarball is automatically replaced by content of Maintainer debian directory at tarball unpack time. So manual removing of upstream debian directory is unnecessary. But I'll send to upstream request to delete debian directory from official tarball in following releases. [1] http://wiki.debian.org/Projects/DebSrc3.0 - debian/control: libapache2-mod-uwsgi, does it work only with apache2-mpm-worker, apache2-mpm-prefork and apache2-mpm-itk? Doesn't it work with other MPMs? You might want to give one default, and add an alternative to apache2-mpm. Example: apache2-mpm-worker | apache2-mpm So you get all other MPMs for free, and you still get the default one you chose (if no other is installed) :) I believe that mod_uwsgi works with any MPM. So I understand that it's a helpful advice, but when I took it, I've got problems. MPM for Apache are mutually exclusive, so if I choose only one of them as dependency, I've take a decision, that may conflicts with user decision. Even dependency on apache2-mpm virtual package doesn't help. I don't know why, but on my system (Debian unstable), when I have apache2-mpm-prefork installed, then installing of libapache2-mod-uwsgi with dependency on (apache2-mpm-worker | apache2-mpm) or even just on virtual package (apache2-mpm) conflicts with apache2-mpm-prefork. And apache2-mpm-prefork is popular as dependency of libpache2-mod-php5. If I change (apache2-mpm-worker | apache2-mpm) to (apache2-mpm-prefork | apache2-mpm), then it will conflicts with apache2-mpm-worker etc. So I decide to make libapache2-mod-uwsgi Depends on (apache2) instead of (apache2-mpm*). -- 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/4c10f1d4.5010...@gmail.com
Re: RFS: uwsgi
Hello Leonid,
On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 18:36:27 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 19:04:44 +0300, Leonid Borisenko wrote:
>
> > * Package name: uwsgi
> > Version : 0.9.5.1-1
> > Upstream Author : Roberto De Ioris
> > * URL : http://projects.unbit.it/uwsgi/wiki
> > * License : GPL-2+
> > Section : web
>
> I'm going to review it ASAP.
While I'm interested in the package, I can't really sponsor it -- I have almost
no knowledge of CDBS to help you there.
However, here are a couple of things you should fix :)
- in debian/rules you're using some bashisms, like using *.{o,pyc}. You should
avoid this, by expanding those yourselves, i.e. "*.o *.pyc".
- you should remove debian/DEBIAN/ from the package
- in debian/control, instead of build-depending on python{2.5,2.6} and
python{2.5,2.6}-dev, you should use python-all-dev. You should keep
python3.1-dev though, since it's not in the -all- package yet.
- debian/control: the package "uwsgi-various" should be better named IMHO,
maybe uwsgi-extra? This is to stay consistent with other packages in Debian
- debian/control: some packages have the same long description. Please fix
this. (uwsgi-plugin-lua, uwsgi-plugin-psgi)
- debian/control , package "uwsgi". Why are you hardcoding the dependency to
uwsgi-python2.5 ? I suggest you use:
uwsgi-python2.5 | uwsgi-python2.6 | uwsgi-python3.1
, drop the "Provides: uwsgi-any" from other uwsgi-python* packages, and fix
the dependency of plugins from "uwsgi | uwsgi-any" to "uwsgi". It should work
the way you intended it :)
- debian/control: libapache2-mod-uwsgi, does it work only with
apache2-mpm-worker, apache2-mpm-prefork and apache2-mpm-itk? Doesn't it work
with other MPMs?
You might want to give one default, and add an alternative to apache2-mpm.
Example:
apache2-mpm-worker | apache2-mpm
So you get all other MPMs for free, and you still get the default one you
chose (if no other is installed) :)
I hope I didn't miss anything :)
Have a nice day,
David
--
. ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
: :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
`. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal
`- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
