If I understand you refere to a "web2py-debian mantainer" not a mere "web2py mantainer" which I guess I am. If I understand I nominate you since you have spend some time on this.
On May 27, 6:38 am, Mark Breedveld <m.breedv...@solcon.nl> wrote: > My excuse for my late reaction, but you all landed up my spambox of my > provider. > Which I've solved now. > > Thank you both for your reaction. > You're (Jose) right on the best practices. > > In order to set up a debian packaging proces we should have or do the > following > - The web2py community should have a maintainer (group) > - Which has manage the releases repo's > - Ajust web2py for use through the repo > - example : disables the buildin update function / > splits data into the right locations etc > > - We should release a debain version on short notice after the sources > release of Massimo. > > - We could usehttp://build.opensuse.orgwhich is/looks very good > > Because the maintainer has to invest a lot of time on regular bases. > My idea is to launch a vacature for it on the community. > And have Massimo make a decide how will become the lead packager, > because he will have to work with him > > I will testhttp://build.opensuse.orgto look if it's usefull for > web2py. > My guesses is that it will be. > I hope to do the testing this weekend. > > Dimo has been started to package gluon map. > For futher info on the plans. there is another post on this. > Search for debian on the web2py group and you will found a hole thread > on this. > > I hope i have informed you well. > > regards Mark Breedveld,www.markbreedveld.nl > > On 21 mei, 07:37, Trollkarlen <robbelibob...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > For packaging i sugest using thehttp://build.opensuse.org. > > Its a service where you can package for all mager distros, and have > > them all in se same repo. > > > /T > > > On 18 Maj, 08:42, José L. <jredr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 17 mayo, 17:32, Mark Breedveld <m.breedv...@solcon.nl> wrote: > > > > > I've been through the material and it's quite straight forward. > > > > So we could keep the current packaging system like it's now. > > > > > But we both now that it ain't suitable fordebianpackaging system. > > > > So I have a tiny idea. > > > > > We start working with a major and a tiny release. > > > > The major release will not be up to date, but a proven version. > > > > And released every quarter or half a year. Just like ubuntu. > > > > > This we make it easier for companies to offer long term support. > > > > Which is an important issue for customers. > > > > > It also shows that web2py has reached the status of an mature > > > > webserver/framework. > > > > > My excuse for the long waiting for my answer, but I starting my own > > > > business. > > > > While I'm also busy with school. > > > > > But I've made request on Hogeschool Rotterdam to support web2py. > > > > And they where very positieve, so I keep you all posted. > > > > > regards Mark Breedveld, > > > > > On Apr 20, 7:06 pm, Mark Breedveld <m.breedv...@solcon.nl> wrote: > > > > > > Thank you very much, > > > > > This are some of the answers I was looking for. > > > > > > I'll dive into it, tomorrow. > > > > > But this gives me an idea about how the release cicle is done. > > > > > And how we could implement thedebianpackages in it. > > > > > > Which has been discussed in an > > > > > earlier.http://groups.google.com/group/web2py/browse_frm/thread/51b731d9abb52... > > > > > This might give an idea why we want to package web2py. > > > > > > And the reason I started this post was because I had the same > > > > > questions as you. > > > > > The frequent releases of Massimo etc. > > > > > More than enough to discuss, > > > > > but first I'll study the answer you give me and come up with an idea > > > > > == more questions :p. > > > > > > regards > > > > > > Mark Breedveld, > > > > I've found this thread of discussion today. I'am an officialDebian > > > developer and was thinking also of packaging web2py forDebian, but > > > I've begun to use web2py only a few weeks ago and I prefer to know > > > more the framework before trying to package it. > > > Anyway, if I've understood it correctly, I've read in this thread that > > > you're planning to add the debianization to the web2py sources, so the > > > package can be created easily. That's a bad practice from theDebian > > > point of view, and package maintainers encourage upstream not to do > > > it, unless upstream is the package maintainer. In fact, it's very > > > usual that, if upstream sources contain adebiandirectory, the > > > maintainer removes it before adding the definitive one. > > > > The oficial maintainer must know and modify the debianization all the > > > time, so he (or they) are who must write it, not upstream. It's the > > > maintainer responsability having it in a good shape inside thedebian > > > repository. > > > > On the other hand, I've also read that you plan to recheck the package > > > every quarter of a year. That's not a good practice either, the > > > package should be checked when it's needed. I.e: everytime a new > > > upstream version is released, on when a bug in the packaging is > > > discovered. > > > > If you want to do theDebianpackage for web2py I recommend you fill a > > > ITP (Intend to Package) bug in bugs.debian.org, so you'll be the > > > official maintainer of it, and do all the packaging inDebian. Doing > > > it in that way, web2py will be in theDebianarchive and, > > > automatically, in all its derivatives, as Ubuntu. > > > > If you need any help, I can lend you a hand, or even do the > > > maintaining of web2py together, but for that, I need more time to know > > > the insides of web2py before feeling I can do a good work with it. > > > > Regards. > > > José L.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
