From: Alex Valavanis <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Leo Jackson <email@example.com>
Cc: Josh Andler <firstname.lastname@example.org>; """Inkscapeemail@example.com"""
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] The Maverik and Lucid builds
Those bugs again refer to the official Ubuntu package. The main
differences are that
* Official Ubuntu packages are inherited from Debian, so we try not to
change too much of the Debian maintainer's (ancient) packaging code
just so that it's easier to manage Ubuntu/Debian synchronisation. For
the native, upstream packages, we don't have that restriction so I
updated a lot of the packaging code to use newer standards.
* The official Ubuntu packages contain patches that were backported
from Inkscape trunk so that Ubuntu users can get some early bug-fixes.
For the upstream packages, we should keep them patch-free so that the
user really is getting the "true" version of Inkscape.
* Ubuntu includes Inkscape in its "main" repository, meaning that it
can be distributed on the official installation DVD (among other
things). To save space, all main packages use the
which strips out a lot of the translations from the package and puts
it in language packs instead. For the upstream package, we shouldn't
do this... we want to provide translations in the package itself.
Hope that helps to explain why the packaging code is so different.
On 30 October 2011 21:28, Leo Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org
> Thank you that is better and easier than I thought. I seen backport in bugs
> And because it didn't build on my system I used those and it worked under my
> host system. Maverik built fine and Lucid did as well.
> When I changed the dh_translation etc. I have built packages before on
> PPA for other programs more than just the two in there.
> and I didn't seem to have a problem.
> I will do what you said ASAP and test in my PPA.
> Leo Jackson
> From: Alex Valavanis <email@example.com
> To: Leo Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org
> Cc: Josh Andler <email@example.com
> Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 5:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] The Maverik and Lucid builds
> Hi Leo,
> Those are all branches of the official (downsteam) Ubuntu package.
> The recipe for automatically building upstream packages is just a very
> simple three-line bzr script, which can be found at
> It just merges the packaging code from
> lp:~inkscape.dev/inkscape/debian-packaging into the Inkscape source
> and then builds and uploads each day. The recipe also automatically
> sets the version of the packages.
> All that was needed to fix the trunk package builds in
> was to remove the versions of libwpg and libwpd in debian/control...
> nothing else! After doing this (and switching on the builds in the
> recipe control panel), the recipe will just start deploying the builds
> each day... there's no need to ever manually upload packages to the
> For the stable repository, it's just a case of creating a new recipe that
> * uses lp:inkscape/0.48.x instead of lp:inkscape
> * uses a sensible versioning scheme
> * pushes to the stable PPA instead of trunk
> We'd also need to make a new branch of the packaging code with one
> very small change... name the package "inkscape" or "inkscape-stable"
> instead of "inkscape-trunk".
> Next week, I'll quite happily document the changes I make to fix the
> PPAs so that you'll know for next time.
> On 30 October 2011
20:51, Leo Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org
>> No problem I did use the recipes from these....
>> The changes that you mention are not all mine. It is due to the way
>> is. I know I made a mistake maybe
>> if possible when Alex gets back he can mentor me. So I can help him with
>> I do understand about the names, and I am sorry about that.
>> Leo Jackson
>> From: Josh Andler <email@example.com
>> To: Alex Valavanis <firstname.lastname@example.org
>> Cc: Leo Jackson <email@example.com
>> Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 5:32 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] The Maverik and Lucid builds
>> Hi Everyone,
>> 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
>> 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 5. You have replaced the "README.source" file with an old, incomplete
>>> 6. debian/control has an ancient Standards-Version
>>> 7. debian/control dependency changes that I made have been
>>> 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 and
>>> packaging guide carefully and attempt to build all packages
>>> 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 <email@example.com
>>>> Yes I seen I just didn't want it not to build.
>>>> Leo Jackson
>>>> From: Alex Valavanis <firstname.lastname@example.org
>>>> To: Leo Jackson <email@example.com
>>>> Cc: "Inkscapefirstname.lastname@example.org
>>>> 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 <email@example.com
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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