Hi Thomas,
On 15.05.20 18:55, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 5/15/20 5:43 PM, jojo wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to join the list because I think my software is a valuable
addition to the debian universe, my ultimate goal would be to bring it
into Ubuntu Studio because it is music-related.
I really think it's a shame that people join Debian just because of
Ubuntu... :(
Feels like we have room for a little smalltalk here :-) I wouldn't put
it this way but rather mention how unbelievable it is that Debian is the
basis for so many other distributions! Back in 98 when I first started
with Linux Debian was my first love (codename Potato LOL). Only Distro
that was seemed "logic" and easy customizable IMHO. And I still dig
Debian based over others but have to admit that I only used Linux at
work, the past 15 years and only nowish coming back to feeling the need
of having a Linux box at home. I have been using a Macbook the last
years - best of both worlds: nice gui and music tools (I use Ableton
Live mostly) and also via homebrew can use UNIX tools and great Open
Source tools (Blender, Inkscape, Gimp, Audacity rules!!!). At work we
have a mixture of RHEL and Ubuntu and for Hardware often there is no
discussion wether to use something else than RedHat because of support
and blabla. All have there advantages but Debian will ever stay in my
heart as the one and only that got me hooked! And most importantly: It
will be like a dream coming true, when my tool really makes its way into
DEBIAN! OH YEAH!
One private question: What do you use? I remember that back then when I
found out that Debian stable is pretty oldish I was always using
testing. My teamleader recently told me that he's actually using
unstable these days and prefers it over testing. I think if one wants
halfway modern software there is only two options: Use Ubuntu(ish) or
use Debian unstable? Right?
I already filed a bug report against the wnpp pseudo package but I am
not quite sure what would be the next step and which packaging guides it
is best to follow to get started with packaging and finally uploading
it.
IMO, the best thing to start with is the packaging tutorial:
apt-get install packaging-tutorial
It's nicely written. Then you should read the Debian Policy Manual.
Finally, search and read the python policy (in the wiki?) if your app is
Python based.
Should my next step be following this tutorial on packaging?
https://packaging.ubuntu.com/html/packaging-new-software.html
This guide talks about bzr. It's not in use anywhere these days, even
Ubuntu people don't use it anymore. It's also Python 2 only, and
therefore, we removed it from Debian.
IMO, you should install sbuild to start with:
https://wiki.debian.org/sbuild
and then go from the above. Note that I don't think using dh_make is a
good idea. It's IMO nicer to just take another Python app as example.
Look at the team's Git for that.
Thanks so much for all this hints, I would have given up if I were alone
here. It really is a jungle of documentation and you never know if it's
the rigth one, if it's outdate or whatevernot easy I have just
set up sbuild and it seems to run. I think I packaged hello successfully
haha ;-)
Following your hint and am now cloning a simple python tool
('rename-flac' seems appropriate for learning). One question: Often I
read the workflow is to first create a source package and then the
binary package from it. Is that true for python tools as well? I mean
there is no "source/binary" in this sense. And this does not seem to be
a source package but a regular package I would install as user using
apt: https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/applications/rename-flac.git
Also some other questions arise as my tool has a dependency that I am
pretty sure is not in debian already. the official discogs_client - a
python sdk to access discogs.com rest api, and actually I forked and
extended it. pull-request to official repo is pending:
https://github.com/JOJ0/discogs_client
Well, if you need it for your app, then it must be packaged in Debian as
well if you intend to depend on it.
I guess I knew the answer already ;-) IMHO it's a shame that Discogs is
not responsive at all to pull-requests in the last ~1-2 years, I would
rather prefer if I package the official discogs_client (really
maintained by discogs.com themselves) but to complete my task, I will
just package my fork because it just works and has two features that I
just require.
I suppose they will stay unresponsive even if I ask them that I would
like to package them for Debian. I don't know what there problem is,
either they are not really interested in a feature-complete python sdk
or they just don't have enough time/manpower for it. Recently it seems
they focus on their mobile app a lot (needed work, that buggy piece
o.. ;-)))
Anyway, tell me what you think: First package my fork to get things
done, then ask discogs.com if they want to be in
