1. Summary
  2. Files
  3. Support
  4. Report Spam
  5. Create account
  6. Log in

Packager's concerns about Docear

If something does not work as it should, please post your report here. Use the search function to learn whether someone else had the same problem before. Please also tell us your operating system and build of Docear (in Docear, select "Help -> About") and other relevant information. Upload screenshots and log files to help us understanding the bug (or send them to help AT docear .org).
Forum rules
If something does not work as it should, please post your report here. Use the search function to learn whether someone else had the same problem before. Please also tell us your operating system and build of Docear (in Docear, select "Help -> About") and other relevant information. Upload screenshots and log files to help us understanding the bug (or send them to help AT docear .org).

Packager's concerns about Docear

Postby m-a » Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:04 pm

Greetings,

I used to package and port SciPlore Mindmapping for FreeBSD in the past - and I'd like to package Docear, but I've run into a few issues up front that I'd like to raise:

  1. I understand that static file names like "docear_allos.zip" are convenient for developers and for the less-skilled users, but they are an absolute no-go for automated packaging systems like FreeBSD's. We resume interrupted downloads (so chances are we resume from a newer/changed files), and we verify the checksums of downloaded packages, in order to detect such download problems, or worse, tampering.
    Can we please have versioned file names?
  2. What are the technical differences between the various _allos, _linux, _... packages, when disregarding the compression tool used? Can these please be either detailed, or can the variants be consolidated? I see no reason why Linux would need a .tar.gz.
    For example, .zip is fine for Linux.
  3. The sourceforge files section tells me to download from Docear.org, which is frowned upon in FreeBSD because we'd like to use the sourceforge mirror structure for redundancy (availability and load distribution).
    Will sf.net downloads be viable for us?
  4. More a hint than a problem, please keep older versions of Docear around for a while so that users don't bump into non-installable ports because the distfiles have disappeared.

Looking forward to replies from persons responsible for Docear only.

Best regards
Matthias
m-a
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:46 pm

Re: Packager's concerns about Docear

Postby tliliith » Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:43 am

Dear Matthias,

thank you very much for your message.
We will discuss the matter in our team.

Best regards,
Stefan
Stefan (Docear Team)
www.docear.org
User avatar
tliliith
Docear Team
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 12:27 pm
Location: Magdeburg, Germany / Berkeley, USA

Re: Packager's concerns about Docear

Postby joeranb » Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:59 pm

Hi Matthias,

I understand that static file names like "docear_allos.zip" are convenient for developers and for the less-skilled users, but they are an absolute no-go for automated packaging systems like FreeBSD's. We resume interrupted downloads (so chances are we resume from a newer/changed files), and we verify the checksums of downloaded packages, in order to detect such download problems, or worse, tampering.
Can we please have versioned file names?


There are two problems with versioned file names. First, as you said, it's less convenient for us. But the main reason is that with SciPlore MindMapping we experienced that many download archives do not regularly update their archives. As a consequence many archives still link e.g. to files like www.sciplore.org/download/splmm_beta10.zip although Beta 16 is the latest version. That means, many users do not download the latest version. To avoid this, using unversioned file names is the only alternative. This way, external blogs, download archives link to a file like www.docear.org/download/docear.exe and users always get the latest version.

Therefore, I am afraid, we cannot offer versioned file names.

What are the technical differences between the various _allos, _linux, _... packages


Again, two reasons. Fist, we can better track for which operating systems users are dowloading Docear. Second, on the first day the two packages were identical indeed. That means both packages included the jar files, the exe file and a SH file. However, some Linux users really tried to run Docear under Linux via the exe file and sent us bug reports because it did not work. Therefore, we decided to remove the exe file from the Linux package. Otherwise it's identical to the all OS package.

The sourceforge files section tells me to download from Docear.org, which is frowned upon in FreeBSD because we'd like to use the sourceforge mirror structure for redundancy (availability and load distribution).
Will sf.net downloads be viable for us?


Yes. You will also be able to download Docear from Sourceforge. New releases might be available a few hours later but they will be available.

More a hint than a problem, please keep older versions of Docear around for a while so that users don't bump into non-installable ports because the distfiles have disappeared.

On Sourceforge you will always find all old releases. btw. on sourceforge you also have the version number not in the file but in the path.

I hope I could help you :-)
Joeran
Joeran (Docear Team)
www.docear.org
User avatar
joeranb
Docear Team
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 11:42 am

Re: Packager's concerns about Docear

Postby m-a » Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:03 am

J├Âran,

thanks for your reply.

I beg to differ on the account that "using unversioned file names" were the "only alternative". I can fancy, off-hand, three different options:

  • there are temporary HTTP redirects on web servers where you can use a constant "always the latest" version link in blogs, and update the redirection target after each new release,
  • you can - in a spot that's harder to find - upload the versioned file name, and a copy of it named Docear_latest_MacOS or thereabouts to a prominent spot,
  • you can (although legally not easily enforceable for GPL'd stuff) ask mirrors not to mirror your software, and instruct users to download only from docear or or sourceforge.net.

And I'd also say that archives serving stale data in the form of download archives (no matter which format) will continue to do so, only it will be less visible to the user - so the "no versions in file names" policy doesn't help the stale download problem.

joeranb wrote:You will also be able to download Docear from Sourceforge. New releases might be available a few hours later but they will be available.


Thanks.
m-a
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:46 pm

Re: Packager's concerns about Docear

Postby joeranb » Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:09 pm

Hi Matthias,

I hope that the sourceforge solution is fine for you because I am afraid that at least for the next few month we just don't have the time for http redirects etc and there will only be the unversioned filenames (except the versions in the path on sourceforge).

Joeran
Joeran (Docear Team)
www.docear.org
User avatar
joeranb
Docear Team
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 11:42 am


Return to Bug Reports

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest