[squeak-dev] Re: Ubuntu package maintainers help

Chris Kassopulo ckasso at sprynet.com
Sun Apr 19 18:32:15 UTC 2009


Greetings all,

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 14:45:49 +0200, Matej Kosik wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>> On 19.04.2009, at 01:25, Jerome Peace wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> Hi Bert and all,
>>>
>>> Response to Berts reply:
>>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2009-April/135572.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> In the closed-source world (Mac, Win) typically the software
>>>>>> authors provide binary packages for end users. This is even true
>>>>>> for open- source software on these platforms, the authors provide
>>>>>> ready-to- install packages, separate from with the source code.
>>>>>> That's why we have Windows and Mac downloads on our website. It's a
>>>>>> one-size-fits- all approach, and all work is done by the authors.
>>>>
>>>>> I would like to see something like this for Ubuntu. I think it is a
>>>>> good place to start. It gives a reasonable goal to shoot for.
>>>>> Lessons learned can then be applied to other squeak distro's one by
>>>>> one.
>>>>
>>>> That already exists, but maybe Matej could need a hand:
>>>>
>>>> http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/3616
>>>>
>>> If he asks for help and there is help I can give, okay.
>> 
>> Matej unsubscribed from squeak-dev about a year ago, saying he was
>> still interested in Squeak but less enthusiastic. So it's unlikely he
>> would ask for help, we have to offer it.
> 
> The repository:
> http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/3616
> was I believe always meant as a intermediate solution before Squeak
> enters usual distribution channels (Debian repositories, Ubuntu
> repositories). I have been updating it for a while. I have failed to
> register Squeak as a regular Debian package. Although, I have never
> tried very hard.
> 
> The problem raised by Jerome was caused by me. The published Squeak VM
> works but without sound. The fix is easy---at compilation time, a few
> other libraries must be present in the system and then the generated
> SqueakVM can play sound. The configure script probably decides which
> plugins to generate with respect to available prerequisities.
> 
> Locally, I have fixed this on my machine now. I can post this to this
> repository
> http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/3616
> It would fix the problem I caused. It is not yet there because I must
> regain access to `squeak.org' to be able to upload updated versions of
> packages.
> 
> However, I am not sure if everybody realizes, that there is quite
> intricate situation:
> - There is Ian Piumarta who is the original author of the SqueakVM
>   and probably knows everything about it (I really know very little
>   about SqueakVM)
> - There is me who maintains
>   http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/3616
>   (OK, I can read README and compile SqueakVM but I cannot solve real
>    problems with the VM. I could look at it but I do not plan to do this
>    because my focus moved. I am sorry. Squeak is wonderful, I liked it
>    very much but I am now trying to solve different problems).
> - There are people who registered SqueakVM as regular Debian package
>   José Luis Redrejo <jredrejo at gmail.com> Now Debian (Lenny) contains
>   SqueakVM. Although, there are no packages for Squeak images. I think
>   this is the remnant of the old problem which nobody solved. Real
>   dedicated work is needed to recognize Debian requirements (concerning
>   licencing) and implement them (to choose a cleanest possible Squeak
>   image and register it as a Debian package; or make some additional
>   cleanups). I haven't done this. Jose's package is not based on Lex's
>   or my work. It is better in some respects (support for 64-bit
>   architecture---perhaps) (the negative part is missing packages with
>   images)

Yes it does seem to be a rather intricate situation and I'm not sure
that I understand it yet. So your packaging efforts landed in Ubuntu
and source is available at wiki.squeak.org. Jose started from a
different source version. His packages, (binary and source) are
available at Debian. In this case, the Ubuntu package was not based
on a Debian package.

The image problem would be that it can't be generated from source?

Until the image problem is resolved users could be advised through
the VM package description to download images of their choice at
squeak.org. That is how the Debian package is set up now.

> - Concerning Ubuntu, they usually base it on Debian packages.
>   Today I have checked and they cite me, not Jose. That is weird because
>   my packages are unofficial whereas Jose's packages are official. Maybe
>   they are confused too.
> 
> 

It seems that getting Ubuntu in sync with Debian would be the proper
solution.

>> I'm cc'ing a few of the people I know worked on DEB packages before.
>> Guys - what do you think of the idea to have a mailing list
>> specifically for packaging issues? Here is my initial post explaining
>> the motivation:
>> 
>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2009-April/135551.html
>> 
>> 

I invited Jose and Jordan Mantha (ubuntu) to this thread.

>>> In the meantime I note that he is focused on debian which spawns
>>> ubuntu. It is not exactly the same. And not the same in the minds of
>>> Ubuntu's users.
>> 
>> As far as I know there is no Ubuntu maintainer for Squeak packages.
>> There is interest (far example by the Sugar maintainers) but finding
>> one specifically for Squeak would be rather valuable.
>> 
>>> On our download website their is no specific mention of Ubuntu which
>>> impedes navigation.
>>>
>>> Also the information presented to linux users requires way too many
>>> decisions for someone just getting started. Trust me on this.
>> 
>> I know, and I do.
>> 
>>> We can address this. It is something I would like to oversight board
>>> not to overlook. If you will pardon the pun.
>> 
>> As a board member I feel responsible for the long-term sustainability
>> of the Squeak project. Hacks and workarounds can be done by anybody,
>> you don't need the board for this.
>> 
>> Anyway, for immediate relieve I did ask you for a proposal that the web
>> team could implement right away.
>> 
>>>>>> Not so in Linux. Here, building the binary packages that fit into a
>>>>>> specific Linux distribution is typically done by users of that
>>>>>> Linux version.
>>>>>
>>>>> That was not true of the etoys installation from squeakland. It does
>>>>> not have to be true for distro's squeak.org supplies.
>>>>
>>>> Squeakland should provide only Mac and Win installers, and work with
>>>> the distros to carry an up-to-date Etoys package.
>>>>
>>>> Right now there also is an RPM and a DEB package at squeakland, but I
>>>> see that as a thing of the past. It already leads to confusion when
>>>> people try to combine those packages with the ones from their distro.
>>>> The squeakland packages are not even a good model how to package
>>>> Etoys but more of a hack.
>>>>
>>> A hack that saves the day is rather welcome IMHO.
>> 
>> IMHO we do have enough hacks already.
>> 
>>> Why do you say it is a thing of the past.
>> 
>> Because having Etoys and Squeak packaged by the distributions is the
>> only sustainable way forward.
>> 
>> Why do you think we spent so much effort on the relicensing? Because we
>> do want to enjoy the benefits of being part of the larger open-source
>> community. It's still a big initial effort but will pay off in the long
>> run.
>> 
>>> The distro's distribute a squeak that doesn't work. That's a thing of
>>> the current. It doesn't become a thing of the past until people
>>> outside of this community act. That action presently is in the realm
>>> of vaporware or REAL-SOON-NOW.
>>>
>>> I have had no response to my addition to Chris's Ubuntu bug report.
>>> This indicates the future will not come soon.
>> 
>> But heaping on workarounds does not bring the future closer. Only
>> working with the distribution maintainers does.
>> 
>>> Meanwhile people need their software to work.
>>>
>>> As a developer I wish to distribute to audiences with fully
>>> functioning squeaks and etoys.
>> 
>> I did not phrase it as a direct question in my last post, but what
>> exactly are you trying to distribute to which audience?
>> 
>>> Right now it is undecided. Though I find your last post most
>>> discouraging. Is that what you intended?
>> 
>> 
>> Of course not. I just do not think adding yet one more set of DEB
>> packages helps improve the situation. It did not help in the past. I'd
>> like to see it done right this time, and I feel the situation is much
>> more favorable now than it was ever before. So if anything I want to
>> *encourage* you and others to work towards proper packages in the
>> distros.
>> 
>> - Bert -
>>





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list