[Pkg-ROX-devel] ROX-Lib2 & more

[Torsten Marek]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Francesco P. Lovergine schrieb:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2005 at 11:10:16PM +0200, Torsten Marek wrote:
>
>>Hello rox packagers,
>>
>>since the other ROX-Lib2 packages are not on the web anymore, I've taken the
>>liberty to create a deb of it. It's available from
>>
>>http://diotavelli.net/files/deb
>>
>>I'm not sure whether python-rox is a good name for it, though it's policy
>>compliant. I'm also a bit unhappy of being to forced to put it into /usr/lib.
>>findrox.py expects it to be in either ~/lib, /usr/local/lib or /usr/lib. The
>>location can also be specified via an environment variable:-/
>>Do you think that a symlink from /usr/lib to /usr/lib/python2.x/site-packages
>>would be better? Are there any rox applications that do not use findrox.py?
>>
>
>
> I'm not a python packager, better asking on d-python before.
I think I just move it into site-packages and place a link in
/usr/lib/ROX-Lib2/python.

>
>
>>BTW, my main email address seems (shlomme at gmx.net) seems to be blocked from this
>>list, could you change that please? I'd like to subscribe to it. Thanks in advance.
>>
>
>
> Sorry, maybe an error in cleaning spammers on the list admin panel. Now
> it's done.

Thanks! I'm subscribed now.

>
>
>>Maybe we should think about a sane way of packaging ROX appdirs/applications. As
>>it is, rox-filer (and python-rox) are "unpacked" into the filesystem, but this
>>makes packaging rox applications an unpleasant experience. If there is enough
>>interest for having the most popular rox applications (edit, archive,
>>mime-editor, video-thumbnail, addapp) packaged (maybe ask on debian-user?),
>>maybe we can find a way to do that half-automatically. Documentation is moved
>>into /usr/share/doc/<package>/, translations into /usr/share/locale..., patch
>>the source and so on.
>>
>
>
> Yes that's mandatory, nice to see your interest about the thing.
>
>
>>There is already a zeroinstall-injector deb in sourceforge, maybe it could also
>>be adopted.
>>BTW, I would package every application listed above, but I cannot make any
>>uploads right now. I'm waiting for frontdesk approval, and I fear that it'll
>>take some more weeks until my account is created.
>>
>
>
> Uhm, I'm not so keen on zeroinstall generally, it could violate debian
> policy in principle...

I've tried it out, and it works as it should, which makes it difficult for us.
Right now, it doesn't even check if ROX-Lib2 is installed on the system
somewhere, it just downloads it from the web. I did not have time to look into
the source code, so I'm not sure whether it's possible to provide a system-wide
override.
It creates the dirs ~/.cache/0install.net/{implementations,interfaces}
In interfaces, a config file is saved, specifying urls and dependencies for
application packages, code is saved in implementations. If we *would* want to
support zeroinstall injector, then the software would have to be modified to
allow system-wide installations (which are then Debian packages). However, if
there is a new version of any program, 0install might not be allowed to download
it, since this would break the consistency between systen and user. Only for rox
apps not packaged by Debian this would be allowed.
This is the problem because 0install solves a problem Debian already has solved.
I slightly doubt that the 0install maintainers would be willing to accept our
patches, since it goes against their philosophy and cripples their project.

Thus, I see two options:
* leave it at rox-filer, be happy that rox.sf.net has a (quite good) Debian
package for zeroinstall and ignore the rest. Debian users can then use the rox
infrastructure (with AddApp and so on)
* create packages for ROX-Lib2 and the most important ROX apps (which would be a
handful, and no Debian user might want to install a ROXified version of a normal
program) and ignore zeroinstall. Still, if somebody doesn't like that solution,
he/she can ignore the debs and use zeroinstall.

Uploading zeroinstall-injector, as you said, might violate policy, since it
provides another install mechanism for software besides apt/dpkg (which is not
impossible, see the extensions of Firefox).


greetings

Torsten
- --
Torsten Marek <shlomme at gmx.net>
ID: A244C858 -- FP: 1902 0002 5DFC 856B F146  894C 7CC5 451E A244 C858
Keyserver: subkeys.pgp.net

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDPmRJfMVFHqJEyFgRAvbTAJ0bpMO8R2Bnln7V//XCUnkMp08xKgCdGeSL
Ozj3Mv0r6TTI2Gk2nvn4rQU=
=cqIA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----