Loomio
Mon 8 Oct 2012 4:59PM

Packaging Team -subgroup creation

JR Jason Robinson Public Seen by 68

A new subgroup for packaging efforts, like the Ubuntu PPA and any other future packaging efforts.

JR

Poll Created Mon 8 Oct 2012 5:00PM

Packaging Team -subgroup creation Closed Sat 13 Oct 2012 8:38PM

Outcome
by Jason Robinson Tue 25 Apr 2017 5:48AM

Motion Passed.

A new subgroup for packaging efforts, like the Ubuntu PPA and any other future packaging efforts.

Rationale: Keep discussion to those who are working with these efforts.

Results

Results Option % of points Voters
Agree 90.0% 9 ST JH JR G PP T S AS L
Abstain 10.0% 1 C
Disagree 0.0% 0  
Block 0.0% 0  
Undecided 0% 257 BK FS MS TS AA S CB HF BO DM GC JH F RF M EG G AX PC BB

10 of 267 people have voted (3%)

G

goob
Agree
Mon 8 Oct 2012 5:26PM

Sounds like an excellent idea.

ST

Sean Tilley
Agree
Mon 8 Oct 2012 5:59PM

Digging this idea.

PP

Pirate Praveen
Agree
Tue 9 Oct 2012 2:04PM

I have been working on getting some of ruby gem dependencies into debian. We still have some way to go, any help is welcome.

AS

Anish Sheela
Agree
Thu 11 Oct 2012 3:33PM

This is an urgent need. I should be able to do apt-get install diaspora.

I was remembering my first install where I had to take a separate net connection for testing diaspora installaion. :(

C

Christophe
Abstain
Sat 13 Oct 2012 1:12PM

Hi, I don't mind a packaging team to be created. Please be aware that this step won't magically solve any problems. Also, the form of packaging is highly connected to Diaspora's architecture, which isn't stable at all at the moment.

L

lusum
Agree
Sat 13 Oct 2012 2:28PM

great idea, simplify the installations giving all the dependencies

ST

Sean Tilley Mon 8 Oct 2012 6:05PM

While we're at it, we could probably make an open call for packagers through small tech blogs like OMG! Ubuntu, WebUpd8, and through general announcements on our community channels of engagement. It might be useful to get some extra hands to help us package things up in a way that makes sense.

Also, it may be worth communicating with Lucas Nussbaum from the Debian project, as he's primarily dealt with many of the issues Ruby has had with packaging in Debian. He might have some useful advice or a workaround

JR

Jason Robinson Mon 8 Oct 2012 8:00PM

I've been planning something like this for Ubuntu:
- Metapackage for pulling build dependencies [done for precise]
- RVM install script triggered by metapackage (unless some local rvm install can be made in a better way)
- Build separate source package and have it install in some good standard location
- Make Ubuntu specific configuration script that will set the configuration items as env params, so no need to modify any .yml files in source dir
- Install needed init.d scripts to easily start the app
- Scripts to configure web servers

Let's see :)

ST

Sean Tilley Mon 8 Oct 2012 9:20PM

Good thinking. Hans has expressed interest in looking into that, maybe we can draw up a game plan for what would need to be done first? :)

JR

Jason Robinson Mon 8 Oct 2012 9:24PM

Sean, I sent you and Hans an email via Launchpad asking for opinions but as you guys didn't answer thought I might as well start preparing ;) Only done an initial source upload (0.0.1) and a meta package for precise that has the generic dependencies.

Anyway, I was figuring a place is needed for this kind of talk and thus the request for this subgroup..

JR

Jason Robinson Tue 9 Oct 2012 2:05PM

Praveen, why not just build RVM locally?

PP

Pirate Praveen Tue 9 Oct 2012 2:06PM

We can use this ITP as tracking point http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=597093

PP

Pirate Praveen Tue 9 Oct 2012 2:07PM

Jason,
apt-get install diaspora would be the easiest option. I have not played with RVM much. It could be an interim solution.

JR

Jason Robinson Tue 9 Oct 2012 2:11PM

Praveen, yep apt-get install diaspora is what it needs to be. But still, an RVM build can be done via post-install etc script. I'm just wondering whether keeping D* ruby in RVM would be cleaner for any persons installing as otherwise it will affect the computer Ruby installation.

But this kind of discussion is why a group is needed ;) Good to know several people are working on this!

JR

Jason Robinson Tue 9 Oct 2012 2:12PM

(I'm a Ruby n00b so just guessing that RVM would be cleaner)

JH

Jonne Haß Tue 9 Oct 2012 2:59PM

For the Archlinux package we just went with bundle install --path vendor essentially since Arch has the latest and greatest Ruby and RubyGems available. It's basically just a Shellscript (which needs some updating :P) check it out: https://gist.github.com/1647460 The original author is behind some weird firewall and I just did some little fixing and improving, still it should demonstrate a way of having the gems separated from the system wide ones without using RVM. RVM really is a user wide tool and I think the system wide installation is only possible because some people just wanted to have it without knowing better, it terribly sucks for system ruby management IMO.

JH

Jonne Haß Tue 9 Oct 2012 3:07PM

As Florian mentioned somewhere else, bundle package is another path to investigate. Getting our huge dependency graph in the exact right versions into every distribution just doesn't seem the right way too me.

JR

Jason Robinson Sat 13 Oct 2012 1:24PM

The subgroup is really for splitting discussion in to logical subgroups - so that it will be easier for interested parties to participate. Of course it will not solve anything but as you can read below some packaging efforts to exist.

JR

Jason Robinson Sun 14 Oct 2012 12:17PM

Created the subgroup - will add some members who have shown interest here - or you can request membership to the group yourself :)

JR

Jason Robinson Sun 14 Oct 2012 12:18PM