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.

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

> 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 -