[pkg-friendica-maint] Regarding Friendica package

[Vasudev Kamath]

Quoting Tobias Diekershoff (2013-04-14 11:57:32)
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 10:53:20 +0530
> Vasudev Kamath <kamathvasudev at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > > > Mike also there are lot of friendica addons without which
> > > > friendica won't be much shiny. Tobias already has ITP but
> > > > upstream repo is quite a bit of mess and no valid download point.
> > > > Since there are multiple addon's probably we can create a full
> > > > friendica packaging team let me know what you think.
> > > 
> > > ???
> > > 
> > > I don't get it. Yes there is an addon repository, and one should use
> > > addons for nice features. But I don't have an ITP for the addons.
> > > And which repo is a mess?
> > 
> > Well what I meant is I don't like .tgz lying all over repo so I'm
> > trying to get it fixed.
> 
> The tar balls are meant to be the easy download for each separate
> addon.

I understand tarball are meant for easy download for users but they are
not versioned. Besides what is the use of placing tarball in Git? There
is download space available on github may be we can dump it there no in
repository.

> 
> > > > I will work with tobias to get the addon's repository in shape
> > > > soon. (Oh yeah Mike Macgirvin was kind enough to give me write
> > > > access to all his projects :-) )
> > > 
> > > And again I don't get it ;-) Every addon has it own subdirectory
> > > and it own license which the original author can choose freely as
> > > the addons strictly don't belong to the ~friendica project.
> > 
> > Yes that's why I feel there should be separate download point for each
> > addon with proper versioning I'm trying to fix it by providing proper
> > Makefile which gets version from php file and can generate .tgz but
> > probably these tgz are better suited as downloads than inside git
> > repository. If you have  other suggestions please let me know.
> 
> "proper versioning" is something I think you can put aside for the
> addons. In gentoo syntax I'd say they are all -9999 in the version,
> even those who care to advance the version number from time to time
> don't seem to do so when they add a new feature but more when they
> remember the version number in the head of the PHP file ;-)

Think from user point of view if new addon is released with some fixes
(lets say security) and more features. How do you notify that to user?
Having proper version is needed for that so it can be notified to user.

In distro context when we have versioned releases package maintainer
will package it and thus it will be available to end user easily.

May be friendica addon structure should mandate use of Version string
inside the code file.

I strongly feel there is need for versioning of addons.

> 
> > > I'll subscribe to that other mailinglist in a moment ;-)
> > > 
> > 
> > Probably we can move this discussion to mailing list! I've already
> > announced this on friendica but not sure it made to every one or still
> > lying on my laptop :-)
> 
> done.
>
Thanks.

--
Vasudev Kamath
http://copyninja.info
Connect on ~friendica: copyninja@{frndk.de | vasudev.homelinux.net}
IRC nick: copyninja | vasudev {irc.oftc.net | irc.freenode.net}
GPG Key: C517 C25D E408 759D 98A4  C96B 6C8F 74AE 8770 0B7E
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-friendica-maint/attachments/20130414/aae3b26e/attachment.pgp>