From: Josh Andler <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Alex Valavanis <email@example.com>
Cc: Leo Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Inkscapeemail@example.com" <Inkscapefirstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 5:32 AM
Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] The Maverik and Lucid builds
I've gone ahead and disabled both PPAs and their published packages.
Once we've gotten this straightened out, we'll bring them back online.
At this time I would personally feel more comfortable if on bringing
them back up that Alex is the one to handle this. I mainly say it
because he was the one to get the trunk builds
up and running very
quickly and he is one of the people who handle our packaging for
Ubuntu (the most active individual if I'm not mistaken).
Leo, if you follow Alex's advice and really think you've got it worked
out in your own PPA first, we'll just have Alex do a once over to see
if it's okay via the packaging policies (and the build recipe). I'm
not trying to discourage you and he wasn't looking to either, we just
have 1 real rule in the project... don't publicly commit broken stuff
under the banner of "official Inkscape". :) It does occasionally
happen, no doubt. I think almost everyone has committed something
broken (for a different platform usually) or missing a piece at least
once (again, a lot of time relating to a different platform). So
please know, you're still good and your efforts are appreciated.
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 1:54 AM, Alex Valavanis <email@example.com
> Hi Leo,
> Thanks for all your work on this, but you are introducing quite a lot
> of major errors in both the trunk and the stable PPAs. Both of these
> PPAs are publicly visible and are "official" Inkscape project builds,
> so any mistakes go live immediately and can potentially break inkscape
> on many users' machines. I'd suggest testing things thoroughly in
> your own PPA before committing changes to the ~inkscape.dev
> The main issues so far:
> * Package naming: You need to follow the Debian policy, otherwise big
> problems can arise... versions like "0.48.2-stable" do not conform to
> standards, and will break the upgrade cycle. At best, the packages
> will fail to upload
> * Rather than
making the small change I suggested to the packaging
> code, you have completely overwritten the entire branch using the
> packaging from the official Ubuntu repositories. This introduces some
> major errors...
> 1. We're supposed to be supplying a clean (native) package of
> Inkscape. You deleted the source/format file, meaning that the build
> system does not know this.
> 2. You have included some patches that I backported to Ubuntu. This
> means that (a) the package is no longer a "clean" inkscape 0.48.2, (b)
> build failures will occur in Inkscape trunk, and (c) the source
> package is no longer native.
> 3. You have added an upstream "watch" file. This is an error, because
> this *is* an upstream package.
> 4. You have downgraded the debhelper compatibility level to an ancient version
> 5. You have
replaced the "README.source" file with an old, incomplete version
> 6. debian/control has an ancient Standards-Version
> 7. debian/control dependency changes that I made have been blanket-reverted
> 8. debian/control now introduces a patch system
> 9. I introduced the "inkscape-trunk" package name to prevent conflicts
> on user systems and allow easy switching between stable and unstable
> 10. debian/rules now reintroduces patching
> * Finally, by manually uploading a broken package with a high
> version-number to inkscape-trunk, all subsequent builds in Ubuntu
> Natty are failing. We'll need to manually remove this before any
> other version can automatically build.
> Sorry to sound so negative... I appreciate all your hard work, but I
> think that you take a break, study the Debian policy manual
> packaging guide carefully and attempt to build all packages firstly on
> your own machine, and then in your own PPA. Finally, if you want to
> introduce any big changes to the packaging code, please push them to a
> new branch and ask for review rather than pushing them straight to the
> live code.
> I can take a look at fixing the broken builds/packaging code next week
> - I'm away on business at the moment, so I don't have time right now.
> On 30 October 2011 01:25, Leo Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org
>> Yes I seen I just didn't want it not to build.
>> Leo Jackson
>> From: Alex Valavanis <email@example.com
>> To: Leo Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org
>> Cc: "Inkscapeemail@example.com
>> Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2011 8:20 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] The Maverik and Lucid builds
>> As far as I remember, it's an easy fix. Just get rid of the
>> versioning on the libwp* dependencies in debian/control. Push these
>> changes to lp:~inkscape.dev/inkscape/debian-packaging and it should be
fine in all Ubuntu versions.
>> On 30 October 2011 00:02, Leo Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org
>>> To All,
>>> For the Maverik and Lucid builds I will have to look into the backports
>>> changes will
>>> take a bit to set up. I will have them shortly just want them to build the
>>> first shot.
>>> Leo Jackson
>>> Get your Android app more play: Bring it to the BlackBerry PlayBook
>>> in minutes. BlackBerry App World™ now supports Android™ Apps
>>> for the BlackBerry® PlayBook™. Discover just how easy and simple
>>> it is! http://p.sf.net/sfu/android-dev2dev
>>> Inkscape-devel mailing list
> Get your Android app more play: Bring it to the BlackBerry PlayBook
> in minutes. BlackBerry App World™ now supports Android™ Apps
> for the BlackBerry® PlayBook™. Discover just how easy and simple
> it is! http://p.sf.net/sfu/android-dev2dev
> Inkscape-devel mailing list