Re: "Ubuntu Packaging Guide"

2011-06-06 Thread Marc Deslauriers 
On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 10:07 -0400, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> On Friday, June 03, 2011 9:51:00 AM Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > Just to pick one example, as soon as you want to work on a package with an
> > out of date branch, you need to move from the UDD toolset.
> 
> Or quilt. Ugh. If it comes down to quilt, there is no way I'm using UDD 
> until: 
> - there is a *consistent* mode of use (pop or push? include .pc or not?)
> - someone documents this consistent mode of use

+1 from me on this. As someone who touches a lot of different packages,
as opposed to working on a specific package set, this drives me
completely nuts.

Marc.



-- 
ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list
ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel

Re: "Ubuntu Packaging Guide"

2011-06-05 Thread Martin Pool 
On 4 June 2011 01:28, Mackenzie Morgan  wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Barry Warsaw  wrote:
>> On Jun 03, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
>>
>> >From what I understand, there are people doing things all sorts of ways with
>>>quilt, and I really don't want to have to learn all the ways people are using
>>>quilt with bzr and try to figure out *which* way any particular package is
>>>using that combination.  I'll stick to apt-get source for those.
>>
>> I've successfully used the guidelines on this page for several quilt 
>> packages:
>>
>> http://people.canonical.com/~dholbach/packaging-guide/html/udd-patchsys.html
>>
>> By no means is it perfect, which everyone acknowledges.  Depending on your
>> level of pain tolerance, you don't necessarily have to punt on UDD right away
>> when working on a quilt3 package.
>
> What if you just want to do "quilt import ../mychanges.patch" (my
> usual use-case for quilt)?  Right now, I'm thinking the old cheater
> way (cp ../mychanges.patch debian/patches && echo "mychanges.patch" >>
> debian/patches/series) seems a lot easier.
>
> Also, the text between the code-boxes on that page are not so helpful
> if you don't know what a loom or a thread are. Well, I mean, I know
> what real looms and real threads are (and goodness are real looms ever
> *expensive*!), but I don't think my textile interests are much help
> here.  I'm guessing that a thread is a branch of a branch, but hiding
> inside the meta-branch like how git branches all live in one dir, but
> really this is my confusion talking.

Your guess is correct.  A loom also records (when you 'bzr record')
which version of each of the threads goes together at any point in
time, as a kind of meta-versioning.

There is some more documentation here:
.

Martin

-- 
ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list
ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel

Re: "Ubuntu Packaging Guide"

2011-06-03 Thread Mackenzie Morgan 
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Barry Warsaw  wrote:
> On Jun 03, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
>
> >From what I understand, there are people doing things all sorts of ways with
>>quilt, and I really don't want to have to learn all the ways people are using
>>quilt with bzr and try to figure out *which* way any particular package is
>>using that combination.  I'll stick to apt-get source for those.
>
> I've successfully used the guidelines on this page for several quilt packages:
>
> http://people.canonical.com/~dholbach/packaging-guide/html/udd-patchsys.html
>
> By no means is it perfect, which everyone acknowledges.  Depending on your
> level of pain tolerance, you don't necessarily have to punt on UDD right away
> when working on a quilt3 package.

What if you just want to do "quilt import ../mychanges.patch" (my
usual use-case for quilt)?  Right now, I'm thinking the old cheater
way (cp ../mychanges.patch debian/patches && echo "mychanges.patch" >>
debian/patches/series) seems a lot easier.

Also, the text between the code-boxes on that page are not so helpful
if you don't know what a loom or a thread are. Well, I mean, I know
what real looms and real threads are (and goodness are real looms ever
*expensive*!), but I don't think my textile interests are much help
here.  I'm guessing that a thread is a branch of a branch, but hiding
inside the meta-branch like how git branches all live in one dir, but
really this is my confusion talking.

(My current advice to mentee about UDD + quilt is "don't")

-- 
Mackenzie Morgan

-- 
ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list
ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel

Re: "Ubuntu Packaging Guide"

2011-06-03 Thread Barry Warsaw 
On Jun 03, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:

>From what I understand, there are people doing things all sorts of ways with 
>quilt, and I really don't want to have to learn all the ways people are using 
>quilt with bzr and try to figure out *which* way any particular package is 
>using that combination.  I'll stick to apt-get source for those.

I've successfully used the guidelines on this page for several quilt packages:

http://people.canonical.com/~dholbach/packaging-guide/html/udd-patchsys.html

By no means is it perfect, which everyone acknowledges.  Depending on your
level of pain tolerance, you don't necessarily have to punt on UDD right away
when working on a quilt3 package.

>Still have to dput anyway...

For now... :)

-Barry


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- 
ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list
ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel

Re: "Ubuntu Packaging Guide"

2011-06-03 Thread Barry Warsaw 
On Jun 03, 2011, at 09:51 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:

>If you look at http://people.canonical.com/~dholbach/packaging-guide you'll
>find no mention of the 'normal' tools and processes that I (and I believe
>most) Ubuntu developers use.  This is not really an Ubuntu Packaging Guide.
>It's really Ubuntu Packaging using UDD tools.

That's really only because I spent the time to port the UDD wiki pages to the
UPG reST documentation.  Documenting the existing tools is just waiting for a
volunteer, but I don't think Daniel or anyone else is fundamentally opposed to
documenting the way people do packaging now.

Daniel has done some reorganization of the UPG to put the UDD pages in a
"knowledgebase" section, which seems right to me.  It'll look less UDD-heavy
when other folks contribute more articles for the guide.  This is of course, a
separate discussion from the maturity or usefulness of UDD itself.

>I do not believe that this toolset is mature enough for general use and it's
>a mistake to present this to potential new developers as "the" way Ubuntu
>does things.  If this document is going to be presented as an Ubuntu
>Packaging Guide the primary focus ought to be on normal packaging tools.
>Alternately, the guide ought to be renamed to reflect it's focus.
>
>Just to pick one example, as soon as you want to work on a package with an
>out of date branch, you need to move from the UDD toolset.

True, as is the current bumpy road with quilt3 packages.  I've been mostly
successful at using UDD with quilt3, but no one will claim it's a satisfactory
story.  Fixing the package importer and quilt compatibility are high on the
bzr team's list of priorities and I have every confidence that they'll achieve
success here.

So I agree that UDD is not mature yet, but I do think it's far enough along
that you can use it for many packages.  And the only way to improve it is to
use it, file bugs, provide feedback, etc.  I personally believe UDD will
eventually provide compelling advantages over the current toolset, which is
why I'm willing to go through some pain with it now.  I certainly don't
begrudge anybody who makes a different choice based on their own needs and
preferences.

Cheers,
-Barry


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- 
ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list
ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel

Re: "Ubuntu Packaging Guide"

2011-06-03 Thread Mackenzie Morgan 
On Friday, June 03, 2011 9:51:00 AM Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Just to pick one example, as soon as you want to work on a package with an
> out of date branch, you need to move from the UDD toolset.

Or quilt. Ugh. If it comes down to quilt, there is no way I'm using UDD until: 
- there is a *consistent* mode of use (pop or push? include .pc or not?)
- someone documents this consistent mode of use

>From what I understand, there are people doing things all sorts of ways with 
quilt, and I really don't want to have to learn all the ways people are using 
quilt with bzr and try to figure out *which* way any particular package is 
using that combination.  I'll stick to apt-get source for those.  Still have 
to dput anyway...

(For non-quilt packages, I'm fine with UDD)

-- 
Mackenzie Morgan
http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com
apt-get moo

-- 
ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list
ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel

"Ubuntu Packaging Guide"

2011-06-03 Thread Scott Kitterman 
I just took my first look at the so called Ubuntu Packaging Guide and it's 
clear that a lot of work has gone into developing a useful guide for new 
contributors.  It does concern me that the name "Ubuntu Packaging Guide" is 
really misleading.

If you look at http://people.canonical.com/~dholbach/packaging-guide you'll 
find no mention of the 'normal' tools and processes that I (and I believe most) 
Ubuntu developers use.  This is not really an Ubuntu Packaging Guide.  It's 
really Ubuntu Packaging using UDD tools.

I do not believe that this toolset is mature enough for general use and it's a 
mistake to present this to potential new developers as "the" way Ubuntu does 
things.  If this document is going to be presented as an Ubuntu Packaging 
Guide the primary focus ought to be on normal packaging tools.  Alternately, 
the guide ought to be renamed to reflect it's focus.

Just to pick one example, as soon as you want to work on a package with an out 
of date branch, you need to move from the UDD toolset.  

I've filed a bug to track this:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-packaging-guide/+bug/792381

Scott K

-- 
ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list
ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel