<div dir="ltr"><div>The guy that wrote this dropped by the #xiphos IRC channel today:</div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://linuxsagas.digitaleagle.net/2020/05/08/xiphos-on-ubuntu-20-04/">https://linuxsagas.digitaleagle.net/2020/05/08/xiphos-on-ubuntu-20-04/</a></div><div><br></div><div>Nice simple writeup on installing Xiphos from source on Ubuntu 20.04 ... until such a time as there are packages!<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 2:07 PM Caleb Maclennan <<a href="mailto:caleb@alerque.com">caleb@alerque.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>And before anybody chimes in, yes I'm aware there are yet more namespaces already floating around on launchpad. There is a "crosswire-misc" project, a "~pkg-crosswire-devel" team, and half a dozen "xiphos-something" projects users have spawned building their own PPAs. I would ignore all the bits except the ones I mentioned before and gradually hope to cleanup/consolidate/obsolete them in favor of clearly named canonical namespaces for the various resources.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I also forgot to mention my third recommendation: the least disruptive solution(s) possible are to use the existing "xiphos-devel" or "pkgcrosswire" team team space and add a new PPA (either "xiphos-devel/ppa" or "pkgcrosswire/xiphos" and setup packaging there. No renames to existing launchpad stuff, just a new new fresh PPA and leave the existing archaic Crosswire PPAs to be cleaned up later.<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 1:50 PM Caleb Maclennan <<a href="mailto:caleb@alerque.com" target="_blank">caleb@alerque.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">A couple days ago I updated the Arch Linux AUR package build to 4.2.0 (now 4.2.1) and also posted pre-compiled packages to my user repository, see <a href="https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/xiphos" target="_blank">https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/xiphos</a>. I'm also working on getting Xiphos included in the default Arch [community] repository, but it looks like that is probably going to get held up until the issue with GTKHTML is resolved. Having deprecated that monstrosity from [community] to AUR some time back nobody wants to see it moving the other way (myself included). If and when that gets removed as a dependency it's quite likely we'll be able to get Xiphos into the mainline repository.<br><br>There are now just a few distros to go, see <a href="https://repology.org/project/xiphos/versions" target="_blank">https://repology.org/project/xiphos/versions</a>!<br><br><b>On the subject of Ubuntu packaging I</b>'ve been granted access to most of the Xiphos related shenanigans on Launchpad. I'm sorry for all ya'll Ubuntu folks because wow is Launchpad a disaster. Through no particular fault even of the original configuration (which took the shotgun approach of registering every project and team name variant possible) and really just a function of how bizarre Launchpad's namespacing is, there doesn't seem to be what I would consider an ideal way to name an official Xiphos PPA. So request for comment on the options as I see them...<br><br><div>For background Launchpad has two basic namespaces: projects and users. Users can, pretty much interchangeably, be individuals or teams. Each has a different URL namespace (projects are /<project> and users/teams are /~<user>). So far so good. The trouble is that even though they are different types and have different namespaces, Launchpad cross checks users against projects so you cannot register a team name with the same name as a project. Weird (especially since the error messages don't indicate this is the issue, it just says another "user" is registered with that name even when the offending conflict is a project). Even that might have been okay, but Launchpad does not allow projects to have PPAs, only users/teams can host PPAs.</div><div><br></div><div>1. There is a project called "xiphos". This is logical enough, but it means we can't host a PPA called "xiphos/ppa", it has to be something else.</div><div>2. There is a team registered called "xiphos-devel". This makes (some) sense as a team name, but less sense as a PPA namespace for official builds. We could put a PPA under this namespace called "xiphos-devel/ppa" or "xiphos-devel/xiphos" or something like that (I think the former is more Ubuntu ideomatic).</div><div>3. There is (very unfortunately and completely uselessly) a _project_ called "crosswire". This should have been registered as team not a project, but I'm not sure we can fix that. Maybe we can ... but it would involve some renames.<br></div><div>4. Probably born out of the the conflict with 3, there is a team called "pkgcrosswire" that hosts PPAs. One of these is the default stable channel PPA called "pkgcrosswire/ppa". This has Xiphos already, albeit in a very dated form (circa 2012). Everything else in there is dated too.<br></div><div><br></div><div>My personal recommendation is to attempt to ⓐ rename the "crosswire" project out of the way, ⓑ rename the "pkgcrosswire" team as "crosswire", ⓒ add a new PPA in this namespace called "crosswire/xiphos", ⓓ include the bare minimum Xiphos + direct dependencies, and finally ⓔ mark that new PPA as a dependency for the default "crosswire/ppa" so that Xiphos is included there too. Code for the Debian packaging rules could logically go under the existing "xiphos" project, and the "xiphos-devel" team would be used as is just for permissions management. I think this would be the cleanest outcome overall, but it is dependent on 3 things. Launchpad has to support these renames without reserving the old namespaces. Also it means renaming the possible in-use pkgcrosswire/ppa to crosswire/ppa. I doubt this is a serious issue considering the newest packages in there are from 2014, with most being older than that. Lastly I/we need more access to the "crosswire" project. I am am part of the team that controls it now but not an admin/owner so I can't rename it.</div><div><br></div><div>If that option doesn't sound good to people my next bid would be to consider renaming the "xiphos-devel" team to something more end-user friendly (maybe "xiphos-project" or "xiphos-packages" or something like that) and opening a PPA in there, so the address people would use would be "ppa:xiphos-project/ppa" or similar. The resulting PPA could still be marked as included in "pkgcrosswire/ppa" eventually.<br></div><div></div><div>Any other suggestions? Am I missing important considerations here?</div><div><br></div><div>Caleb<br></div></div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>