[sword-devel] Packaging (was: I give up)
Jaak Ristioja
jaak at ristioja.ee
Thu May 14 01:30:46 MST 2020
On 14.05.20 01:54, Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
> Has anyone tried any of the packaging tools based on containers, like
> flatpak?
BibleTime has. Unfortunately not yet with the latest 3.0 RC 1, but 3.0
beta 2 has them available. Details:
https://github.com/bibletime/bibletime/releases/tag/v3.0_beta2
>
> On 5/13/20 3:30 PM, Michael H wrote:
>> On Ubuntu, I've gone to PPA version for LibreOffice... which is a
>> newer version than was released under Ubuntu 18 LTS. However, it's not
>> as easy to go to PPA for sword apps because there are more
>> interactions with dependencies between the sword engine, gnome, etc.
>>
>> Back in 2002 to 04 time frame: I was trying to build for palmOS, and
>> ran into this dependencies won't line up, i need multiple minor
>> revisions of the same thing to make everything work. I and ended up
>> getting somebody to "staticly compile" apps for me on the linux side,
>> so my work on palm wouldn't be falling into dependency gap. It
>> increases the size of the package, but no longer depends on anything
>> outside the package. In today's environment of massive amounts of RAM
>> and disk space, i don't see why any 'application' on linux doesn't do
>> this... pulling in the libraries and having an extra copy of them
>> makes them far more stable, and it makes them run quicker. It does
>> consume more memory and disk space, but the days when there was any
>> risk of running out of ram or disk space on desktops are into double
>> digits gone by.
>>
>> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 4:39 PM Greg Hellings <greg.hellings at gmail.com
>> <mailto:greg.hellings at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 4:28 PM Tom Sullivan <info at beforgiven.info
>> <mailto:info at beforgiven.info>> wrote:
>>
>> Greg:
>>
>> The repositories do not contain the latest versions. For
>> example, the
>> Debian Buster repository presents Xiphos 4.1, not the latest 4.2.
>>
>>
>> 1) This is the benefit and curse of Debian. It refuses to let new
>> versions of packages in that are not bugfix and ONLY bugfix.
>> Nothing with new features at all is allowed into a stable/released
>> version of Debian. It's a benefit to users who need the stability
>> (read: server administrators and people who develop software for
>> running on those stable versions of Debian) but it's a terrible
>> experience for end users. If you're using Debian anything (other
>> than sid, their testing release) for an end-user desktop, then
>> you're going to have a bad experience.
>>
>> 2) This is, again, an issue with the distro, and not with
>> Crosswire or Xiphos. There is nothing we can do to affect
>> upstream's release cadence and rules. Now, if the Xiphos project
>> had enough developer manpower to maintain patches to the 4.1
>> series as well as continue development towards 4.2, then maybe
>> we'd be able to get a 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 into old Debian versions.
>> That's what large projects do (like Debian itself), but we just
>> don't have the developer bandwidth to maintain multiple branches
>> on any of our software. But none of our software is intended for
>> server, long-lived boxes, either. It's all end user focused stuff.
>>
>>
>> That is how I ended up reporting bugs that had been fixed. It
>> is a wide
>> problem; I mention Xiphos, not as a bad example, but because I
>> happened
>> to remember the version numbers.
>>
>>
>> The same would be true of Sword. 1.8.1 is not just a bugfix
>> release of the 1.8 series. It introduced some minor new
>> functionality so, technically, it would not have been permitted
>> into the Debian repository if anyone was checking closely. This is
>> just how we handle our software, again, because we lack the
>> manpower to keep multiple development streams flowing.
>>
>> I would, again, submit that your issue is actually with your
>> chosen distribution. Its documentation appears to be inadequate,
>> and it's lulled you into using a distribution that's not targeting
>> your use case. You might try running Fedora (or Ubuntu and not
>> staying on LTS versions) which have much more generous update
>> policies. I can tell you, for instance, that Xiphos compiles very
>> nicely on current Fedora versions with a few very simple commands.
>> I happen to know this because I maintain both our Xiphos CI
>> process and the packages in the repositories for Xiphos. Now, I
>> haven't updated the packages to 4.2.1 yet, for Xiphos, because I
>> was busy helping with the CI and the release of 4.2.1, but due to
>> the CI I know that compiling for Fedora 32 will be a breeze.
>>
>> Compiling for Ubuntu is a little more of a challenge, because of
>> the missing dependencies, but Caleb is working on create a
>> dedicated repository on Ubuntu's infrastructure just for that. And
>> Caleb, myself, Dom, and Karl are all working to resolve those
>> issues so that, in the future, a 4.3 or 4.4 will be able to make
>> it back into the Debian repos and eventually into the Ubuntu
>> "universe" repositories.
>>
>> So maybe give us a shot, still, on a distro that's meant for you? :)
>>
>> --Greg
>>
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> Tom Sullivan
>> info at BeForgiven.INFO
>> FAX: 815-301-2835
>> ---------------------
>>
>> On 5/13/20 5:21 PM, Greg Hellings wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 3:57 PM Tom Sullivan
>> <info at beforgiven.info <mailto:info at beforgiven.info>
>> > <mailto:info at beforgiven.info <mailto:info at beforgiven.info>>>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Y'all:
>> >
>> > First, I recognize that as a writer and long retired
>> developer and
>> > engineer (and thus obsolete) that in terms of technical
>> issues, I am
>> > way
>> > out of my league with all you C++ programmers and experts.
>> >
>> > Second, I want to thank all of you for your hard work.
>> Compared to what
>> > is available for Windows and Mac users, available Bible
>> software and
>> > tools are sparse. You work as volunteers and on a
>> shoestring budget.
>> > Very many thanks. Without your work, I would be back to
>> books and paper
>> > without being able to search, compare versions, etc.,
>> with such ease.
>> > Linux users are definitely an under served people group
>> and you fill a
>> > big need.
>> >
>> > Some of you may remember my SwordHammer project.
>> Frankly, it has
>> > crashed
>> > and burned. Due to an architecture decision that was not
>> the best, it
>> > became unwieldy. And now, due to changes in my life, I
>> cannot continue,
>> > though I had started on a new architecture. This has two
>> consequences:
>> > 1. There probably is not any longer reason to continue
>> on this list
>> > much
>> > longer.
>> > 2. I got an appreciation for the huge problem caused by
>> incompatible
>> > Linux distros. For example, I did not know that Ubuntu
>> users were
>> > limited to sudo, instead of being able to run as root.
>> >
>> > Many of my previous interactions with this list have
>> been caused by my
>> > use of obsolete versions. I cannot help it. I seem only
>> able to install
>> > packages from the Debian repository (or download a *.deb
>> suitable for
>> > Debian Buster and install). I recently tried to compile
>> and install
>> > Sword (which worked), BibleTime (which crashed), and
>> Xiphos (which I
>> > was
>> > not able to compile by various tries.) There are errors
>> in the docs,
>> > and
>> > discrepancies between docs, and who knows what.) I
>> failed. So I am
>> > stuck, and that is not mainly your fault. The problem is
>> that there is
>> > no Linux-wide packaging or installation system. It may
>> or may not be
>> > technically feasible, I don't know). When things go
>> wrong, I often have
>> > no idea how to fix them.
>> >
>> >
>> > You really shouldn't have to download any files. You should
>> only have to
>> > run "sudo apt update && sudo apt install bibletime". Or, if
>> you want to
>> > compile BibleTime from source but use the packaged Sword
>> library, "sudo
>> > apt install libsword-dev". Currently, Xiphos is not
>> compatible with
>> > Debian/Ubuntu because it depends on ancient libraries that
>> are not
>> > available in those distributions anymore. However, packagers
>> for those
>> > distros, until recently, were maintaining a heavily patched
>> version of
>> > Xiphos that was avilable in their repositories. All that was
>> needed was
>> > "sudo apt install xiphos". No downloading or building or
>> manually
>> > finding dependencies.
>> >
>> >
>> > So I have two suggestions here, but let me start with an
>> analogy.
>> > When I
>> > have to buy a new vehicle, my concern is not if the seat
>> is nice and
>> > the
>> > radio works and the vanity light works. I want it to
>> safely take me
>> > where I want to go. If there is a rip in the seat or
>> dents in the body
>> > or some rust or something, I can live with that. So, I
>> am willing to
>> > live with what is in the repositories and not waste
>> everybody else's
>> > time with bug reports. I apologize for doing that. It
>> was not
>> > intentional, but that is what happened.
>> >
>> > Suggestion 1: Clean up documentation. Prime exhibit: May
>> Crosswire page
>> > refers to Sword 1.8.0 with link for months with no
>> mention of 1.8.1.
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm not sure where you're looking. This is the download page
>> for Sword
>> > source http://crosswire.org/sword/develop/index.jsp and it
>> mentions
>> > 1.8.1 without incident.
>> >
>> >
>> > Suggestion 2: For the more popular distros, provide
>> ready-to-go
>> > packages, .deb files (or equivalent, such as .rpm) for
>> installs and
>> > updates, even if they do not hit the repositories until
>> later. This
>> > will
>> > get users access who are not experts. In my opinion, for
>> what it is
>> > worth, this is at least as important as new features.
>> Also allow users
>> > an option to automatically check for updates and tell
>> where to get a
>> > new
>> > package. I understand that this takes time and work. I
>> would rather get
>> > some new features and bug fixes, and be able to get and
>> use them, than
>> > new features I will never see because I can't compile or
>> something. I
>> > rather think that others are also in my position as well.
>> >
>> >
>> > This is usually a Very Bad Idea for upstream projects. Every
>> distro has
>> > its own quirks, foibles, and differences. For instance,
>> gtkhtml is still
>> > avilable on Fedora but not on Ubuntu or Debian. As such,
>> Xiphos can be
>> > compiled rather readily on Fedora but not on Debian/Ubuntu
>> without heavy
>> > patching of the source to disable the editor features. Those
>> are details
>> > already managed by the packagers of those distributions and
>> are quite a
>> > nightmare for every upstream project to keep track of. Nor
>> is it easy to
>> > keep separate the very tiny tweaks that make up the Debian
>> -> Ubuntu ->
>> > Mint/Pop/etc food chain where downstream distributions
>> consume upstream
>> > packages in some manner. Providing a build is not something
>> upstream
>> > projects like Sword ought to do.
>> >
>> > Should our docs be updated so that they work in those
>> distros, where
>> > possible? Yes. But it sounds like most of your difficulty
>> was with the
>> > package manager on the Debian (or Ubuntu?) system you were
>> using. For an
>> > end user, you should have just "sudo apt install <my
>> pacage>" and been
>> > able to get along without trouble. The fact you weren't was
>> a failure on
>> > the part of the distribution. Not on Sword, Crosswire,
>> BibleTime, or
>> > Xiphos. I have no idea what your ultimate goal is, though,
>> so I can't
>> > give you more particular details than that.
>> >
>> > --Greg
>> >
>> >
>> > For what it is worth, and sorry it is so long. Sorry
>> again for wasting
>> > all your time in the past. God bless you and keep up all
>> the good work.
>> > It is not perfect, but it is definitely good and I use
>> your stuff many
>> > hours a week and every day.
>> >
>> > Sincerely,
>> > Tom Sullivan
>> >
>> > --
>> > Tom Sullivan
>> > info at BeForgiven.INFO
>> > FAX: 815-301-2835
>> > ---------------------
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
>> <mailto:sword-devel at crosswire.org>
>> > <mailto:sword-devel at crosswire.org
>> <mailto:sword-devel at crosswire.org>>
>> > http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
>> > Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at
>> above page
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> > This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email
>> Security.cloud service.
>> > For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
>> >
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
>> <mailto:sword-devel at crosswire.org>
>> > http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
>> > Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
>> <mailto:sword-devel at crosswire.org>
>> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
>> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
>> <mailto:sword-devel at crosswire.org>
>> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
>> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
>> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
>> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
>
More information about the sword-devel
mailing list