Bug#722130: [pkg-otr-team] gajim-plugin-otr
Hi, Dmitry Smirnov wrote (03 Apr 2014 20:41:07 GMT) : Very nice, thanks. I'd like to let you know about gajim-plugin-otr (RFP #722130) that I packaged some time ago. It is pretty much ready and only need someone to take ownership. I would personally be happy to see you upload the Gajim OTR plugin, and become the primary maintainer for it, under our team's umbrella. But maybe other team members will want to get more involved :) Now, I have a few questions: 1. The current state of upstream work on this plugin is a bit confusing. The homepage [1] says bugs live in Trac [2], while I've seen the author re-create on GitHub [3] a bug filed in Trac. Any idea where is the preferred place to forward Debian bugs? 2. Upstream wrote [4] I don't have a lot of time for gotr right now five months ago, and indeed, an important bug like the OTR logs conversations [5] one has seen no update since then. Are you confident such problems will be addressed in a timely manner by upstream, in the future? 3. I see you've called the source package gajim-plugins. If the idea is to potentially maintain a bunch of non-OTR Gajim plugins in the source package, then I doubt it's appropriate to put it under the OTR team's umbrella. So, perhaps a dedicated source package would be better. What do you think? [1] https://trac-plugins.gajim.org/wiki/OffTheRecordPlugin [2] https://trac-plugins.gajim.org/query?status=acceptedstatus=assignedstatus=newstatus=reopenedcomponent=OffTheRecordPlugin [3] https://github.com/afflux/gotr/issues [4] https://github.com/afflux/pure-python-otr/issues/45 [5] https://trac-plugins.gajim.org/ticket/69 Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/8561mpmgg8@boum.org
Bug#722130: [pkg-otr-team] gajim-plugin-otr
On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 14:23:19 intrigeri wrote: I would personally be happy to see you upload the Gajim OTR plugin, and become the primary maintainer for it, under our team's umbrella. I'm not that keen to do that. Not yet. I did packaging over 6 months ago and it would have been uploaded long time ago if I were prepared to take responsibility. But maybe other team members will want to get more involved :) That's my only hope. :) Now, I have a few questions: 1. The current state of upstream work on this plugin is a bit confusing. The homepage [1] says bugs live in Trac [2], while I've seen the author re-create on GitHub [3] a bug filed in Trac. Any idea where is the preferred place to forward Debian bugs? I don't know. 2. Upstream wrote [4] I don't have a lot of time for gotr right now five months ago, and indeed, an important bug like the OTR logs conversations [5] one has seen no update since then. Are you confident such problems will be addressed in a timely manner by upstream, in the future? I have no idea. I rarely use instant messaging these days so I didn't even fully test otr plugin hence I'm lacking confidence necessary for upload. 3. I see you've called the source package gajim-plugins. If the idea is to potentially maintain a bunch of non-OTR Gajim plugins in the source package, then I doubt it's appropriate to put it under the OTR team's umbrella. So, perhaps a dedicated source package would be better. What do you think? Probably not, to avoid micro-packaging. To me gajim-plugins is a most appropriate form of packaging gajim plugins (and producing per plugin binary packages) as long as plugins are shipped from common repository checkout even if we're going to ship just one plugin for now. But that's just my vision and I do not mind at all if somebody would choose to de-couple this particular plugin and maintain it separately. -- Cheers, Dmitry Smirnov. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#722130: [pkg-otr-team] gajim-plugin-otr
Hi everyone, 3. I see you've called the source package gajim-plugins. If the idea is to potentially maintain a bunch of non-OTR Gajim plugins in the source package, then I doubt it's appropriate to put it under the OTR team's umbrella. So, perhaps a dedicated source package would be better. What do you think? Probably not, to avoid micro-packaging. To me gajim-plugins is a most appropriate form of packaging gajim plugins (and producing per plugin binary packages) as long as plugins are shipped from common repository checkout even if we're going to ship just one plugin for now. Producing per plugin binary packages is a bad idea in this case. It increases the size of Packages.*, Contents-* and Translation-* files in arhive too much, that affects all Debian users, but not only Gajim users. Also it increases the size of archive itself because each deb package contains some meta information. I do not know how many useful Gajim plugins you may want to package, so I will just show an example of one of my packages. Currently there are 31 plugins [1] in Psi+ project including OTR plugin. And it is possible that some new plugins will be added in the future. The size of psi-plus-plugins package is about 1.5 MB per each architecture [2] and it appends only 20 strings into Packages.* files [3]. And now try to imagine how it would look otherwise. [1] https://packages.debian.org/sid/i386/psi-plus-plugins/filelist [2] https://packages.debian.org/unstable/psi-plus-plugins [3] http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/dists/sid/main/binary-i386/Packages.xz But that's just my vision and I do not mind at all if somebody would choose to de-couple this particular plugin and maintain it separately. Personally I do not think that providing a separate source package is useful, when OTR plugin comes in a single tarball with other plugins. More over it increases the amount of work for maintainer, even if only OTR plugin will be packaged separately and all other plugins will be packaged together. Best regards, Boris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1498241396632...@web16g.yandex.ru
Bug#722130: [pkg-otr-team] gajim-plugin-otr
On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 21:30:05 Boris Pek wrote: Producing per plugin binary packages is a bad idea in this case. It increases the size of Packages.*, Contents-* and Translation-* files in arhive too much, that affects all Debian users, but not only Gajim users. Also it increases the size of archive itself because each deb package contains some meta information. I see your point but I'm not sure if we should provide bulk binary package with all plugins at once. Perhaps only if they are not enabled by default... In any case the gain is little -- potentially a dozen plugins packaged in one or more packages... Not too much of a difference... But that's just my vision and I do not mind at all if somebody would choose to de-couple this particular plugin and maintain it separately. Personally I do not think that providing a separate source package is useful, when OTR plugin comes in a single tarball with other plugins. More over it increases the amount of work for maintainer, even if only OTR plugin will be packaged separately and all other plugins will be packaged together. That's exactly my point. :) I just wanted to say that if I'm not involved I'm not going to enforce my vision on maintainer who is doing all the work. I just did initial packaging for someone to carry on. Frankly I'm surprised that gajim maintainer(s) shown no interest so far... -- All the best, Dmitry Smirnov. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
