On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 08:42:03 +0200, José Luis Redrejo wrote:

> El 20 de abril de 2009 23:31, Lex Spoon <lex at lexspoon.org> escribió:
> 
>> Jose, the packages Matej is now maintaining really are far ahead of the
>> ones you have uploaded.  They reflect dozens of hours by at least four
>> maintainers, and there have been multiple insights along the way about
>> how to make things Just Work for the common use cases.
>>
>> In case it needs being explicit, here are some things those packages do
>> that are not in the ones you have uploaded:
>>
>> A "squeak" package that pulls in everything a VM, changes, and sources
>> file.
>> A rich set of images files (hich would need to remain in an external
>> apt repository)
>> A "squeak" script that works when typed by itself... ...and also works
>> with the images and sources packages. Desktop menu items.
>>
>> We should use these packages as a basis going forward.  The DFSG-free
>> ones can go into Debian proper, and the others can stay on
>> ftp.squeak.org.  The libMPEG issue is a good catch, but it seems pretty
>> trivial, isn't it?  It could be disabled for now, and later provided as
>> an external plugin hosted on ftp.squeak.org.
>>
>>
>>
> After reading all your arguments I only can say the same I wrote in my
> first email in this thread: I don't find anything else to do now from my
> side. I also think that some of you haven't even checked the package in
> Debian as some of the things you say to defend the use of the squeak.org
> packages are done by the Debian package too (as the script that works
> when typed itself or the Debian menu integration). My main issue is that
> I don't want the users to have to use a script to launch anything. With
> the Debian package they can click on a squeak image (that appears with a
> Squeak icon on their desktops) and open it, or launch squeak from the
> menus and have a graphical menu to choose the image they want to use.
> The vm itself is exactly the same, with the same bugs in Debian or in
> Squeak.org. So I don't see any benefit of using the vm from Squeak.org
> in Debian, it would be a backwards step. Obviously I'll be glad to
> receive patches to make it a better package.
> 
> As Matej said previously, the vm package in Squeak.org can be improved. 
> I fully agree, and I also do think that we should merge the package, but
> now the package in Debian is better from my point of view: it is not
> incompatible with the images in squeak.org and gives an easier
> experience to the non-technical users. I'm not rejecting anything, I'm
> just saying that both packages are very similar, almost the same, but
> the differences are still important from my point of view and don't see
> any reason to upload to Debian the vm from squeak.org, maybe the
> opposite would be more reasonable.
> 
> Regards.
> José L.

I'm using the Debian package on Ubuntu now. I can start Squeak with various
images from the command line or from menu items I set up. If I put links in
the .squeak directory I can choose an image from a graphic list. I don't
have desktop integration and there is no default image. Ubuntu packagers
would have to deal with that.

The Ubuntu package gives me a Squeak menu item that starts an image that is
installed by the package. I can start Squeak with various images from the
command line or from menu items I set up. Sound does not work because the
sound plugin (and others) is missing.

As a user, either package is fine with me. Future Ubuntu packages will be
derived from one of the two at the discretion of the Ubuntu packager. I
would favor the VM coming from Debian because of the benefits of a single
package and because I know Jose is motivated by his users. The focus
should be ease of use for new users. For a Ubuntu packager, the desktop
integration would be easy to do.

What is missing from this discussion is a Ubuntu packager. Getting a VM
package with a complete plugin set in Ubuntu is what is needed now. It
should come from squeak.org since that is what the current version is built
from.

How do we get that done?

Chris