And before anybody chimes in, yes I'm aware there are yet more namespaces already floating around on launchpad. There is a "crosswire-misc" project, a "~pkg-crosswire-devel" team, and half a dozen "xiphos-something" projects users have spawned building their own PPAs. I would ignore all the bits except the ones I mentioned before and gradually hope to cleanup/consolidate/obsolete them in favor of clearly named canonical namespaces for the various resources.
I also forgot to mention my third recommendation: the least disruptive solution(s) possible are to use the existing "xiphos-devel" or "pkgcrosswire" team team space and add a new PPA (either "xiphos-devel/ppa" or "pkgcrosswire/xiphos" and setup packaging there. No renames to existing launchpad stuff, just a new new fresh PPA and leave the existing archaic Crosswire PPAs to be cleaned up later. On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 1:50 PM Caleb Maclennan <ca...@alerque.com> wrote: > A couple days ago I updated the Arch Linux AUR package build to 4.2.0 (now > 4.2.1) and also posted pre-compiled packages to my user repository, see > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/xiphos. I'm also working on getting > Xiphos included in the default Arch [community] repository, but it looks > like that is probably going to get held up until the issue with GTKHTML is > resolved. Having deprecated that monstrosity from [community] to AUR some > time back nobody wants to see it moving the other way (myself included). If > and when that gets removed as a dependency it's quite likely we'll be able > to get Xiphos into the mainline repository. > > There are now just a few distros to go, see > https://repology.org/project/xiphos/versions! > > *On the subject of Ubuntu packaging I*'ve been granted access to most of > the Xiphos related shenanigans on Launchpad. I'm sorry for all ya'll Ubuntu > folks because wow is Launchpad a disaster. Through no particular fault even > of the original configuration (which took the shotgun approach of > registering every project and team name variant possible) and really just a > function of how bizarre Launchpad's namespacing is, there doesn't seem to > be what I would consider an ideal way to name an official Xiphos PPA. So > request for comment on the options as I see them... > > For background Launchpad has two basic namespaces: projects and users. > Users can, pretty much interchangeably, be individuals or teams. Each has a > different URL namespace (projects are /<project> and users/teams are > /~<user>). So far so good. The trouble is that even though they are > different types and have different namespaces, Launchpad cross checks users > against projects so you cannot register a team name with the same name as a > project. Weird (especially since the error messages don't indicate this is > the issue, it just says another "user" is registered with that name even > when the offending conflict is a project). Even that might have been okay, > but Launchpad does not allow projects to have PPAs, only users/teams can > host PPAs. > > 1. There is a project called "xiphos". This is logical enough, but it > means we can't host a PPA called "xiphos/ppa", it has to be something else. > 2. There is a team registered called "xiphos-devel". This makes (some) > sense as a team name, but less sense as a PPA namespace for official > builds. We could put a PPA under this namespace called "xiphos-devel/ppa" > or "xiphos-devel/xiphos" or something like that (I think the former is more > Ubuntu ideomatic). > 3. There is (very unfortunately and completely uselessly) a _project_ > called "crosswire". This should have been registered as team not a project, > but I'm not sure we can fix that. Maybe we can ... but it would involve > some renames. > 4. Probably born out of the the conflict with 3, there is a team called > "pkgcrosswire" that hosts PPAs. One of these is the default stable channel > PPA called "pkgcrosswire/ppa". This has Xiphos already, albeit in a very > dated form (circa 2012). Everything else in there is dated too. > > My personal recommendation is to attempt to ⓐ rename the "crosswire" > project out of the way, ⓑ rename the "pkgcrosswire" team as "crosswire", ⓒ > add a new PPA in this namespace called "crosswire/xiphos", ⓓ include the > bare minimum Xiphos + direct dependencies, and finally ⓔ mark that new PPA > as a dependency for the default "crosswire/ppa" so that Xiphos is included > there too. Code for the Debian packaging rules could logically go under the > existing "xiphos" project, and the "xiphos-devel" team would be used as is > just for permissions management. I think this would be the cleanest outcome > overall, but it is dependent on 3 things. Launchpad has to support these > renames without reserving the old namespaces. Also it means renaming the > possible in-use pkgcrosswire/ppa to crosswire/ppa. I doubt this is a > serious issue considering the newest packages in there are from 2014, with > most being older than that. Lastly I/we need more access to the "crosswire" > project. I am am part of the team that controls it now but not an > admin/owner so I can't rename it. > > If that option doesn't sound good to people my next bid would be to > consider renaming the "xiphos-devel" team to something more end-user > friendly (maybe "xiphos-project" or "xiphos-packages" or something like > that) and opening a PPA in there, so the address people would use would be > "ppa:xiphos-project/ppa" or similar. The resulting PPA could still be > marked as included in "pkgcrosswire/ppa" eventually. > Any other suggestions? Am I missing important considerations here? > > Caleb >
_______________________________________________ xiphos-devel mailing list xiphos-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/xiphos-devel