Can anyone explain what the file
inkscape-0.42-1hjh.i586.rpm
in our files section is for? Is it necessary and if so, can it be named more transparently?
If no one responds, I will remove these files.
We also have a project member "hjheins" who is listed as a packager. Who is that? Was it him who created the hjh files? Is it normal to create packages named after a person?
I'm seriously worried.
On 8/5/05, bulia byak <buliabyak@...400...> wrote:
Can anyone explain what the file
inkscape-0.42-1hjh.i586.rpm
in our files section is for? Is it necessary and if so, can it be named more transparently?
-- bulia byak Inkscape. Draw Freely. http://www.inkscape.org
Hi, Bulia.
On 8/8/05, bulia byak <buliabyak@...400...> wrote:
If no one responds, I will remove these files. We also have a project member "hjheins" who is listed as a packager. Who is that? Was it him who created the hjh files? Is it normal to create packages named after a person? I'm seriously worried.
Perhaps the packages bear the wrong name. It seems those are for Mandriva something LE.
You can see HJH's posts from July 27. Search for "hjh" on your Gmail, and they'll show up.
Greetings!
Daniel Díaz yosoy@...31...
On 8/5/05, bulia byak <buliabyak@...400...> wrote:
Can anyone explain what the file
inkscape-0.42-1hjh.i586.rpm
in our files section is for? Is it necessary and if so, can it be named more transparently?
-- bulia byak Inkscape. Draw Freely. http://www.inkscape.org
-- bulia byak Inkscape. Draw Freely. http://www.inkscape.org
On 8/9/05, Daniel Díaz <mrchapp@...400...> wrote:
Perhaps the packages bear the wrong name. It seems those are for Mandriva something LE.
OK, thanks, I missed that thread, but now that I read it, I don't see the reasons for why we need the RPM. Doesn't the static one work there? If so why? Can we fix it?
And in any case, if these rpms are necessary, PLEASE rename them so it's clear what they're for.
Have anyone tested these RPMs, by the way?
Yes,
I created these packages. I think you do have a very good point about the naming convention. However, I am not sure whether I can just use "mdk" as Mandriva does on the packages, as that could create some confusion about where they came from. As fas as I could find out, Mandriva itself (and people who are in some ways affiliated) use this extension. I am open to suggestions, so if you have a suggestion for a naming extention that is clear and describes where the package is for, please tell me.
I suppose that the static builds could be used in any distro that can handle .rpm files. However Mandriva uses a menu (like Debian's menu), and as far as I know, the static packages don't contain a menu entry that the .hjh packages do have. Also, I did build a x86_64 versoin of inkscape, actually I began with that, as that didn't exist yet, and people were asking for it (especially at Mandriva sites and fora). I don't think that the static build can replace that, can it?
And finally: yes, the rpm's are tested.
bulia byak wrote:
On 8/9/05, Daniel Díaz <mrchapp@...400...> wrote:
Perhaps the packages bear the wrong name. It seems those are for Mandriva something LE.
OK, thanks, I missed that thread, but now that I read it, I don't see the reasons for why we need the RPM. Doesn't the static one work there? If so why? Can we fix it?
And in any case, if these rpms are necessary, PLEASE rename them so it's clear what they're for.
Have anyone tested these RPMs, by the way?
On 8/10/05, Hendrik-Jan Heins <hjh@...932...> wrote:
I created these packages. I think you do have a very good point about the naming convention. However, I am not sure whether I can just use "mdk" as Mandriva does on the packages, as that could create some confusion about where they came from. As fas as I could find out, Mandriva itself (and people who are in some ways affiliated) use this extension.
I think something like *-mandriva-<version>-* would be the best.
I suppose that the static builds could be used in any distro that can handle .rpm files. However Mandriva uses a menu (like Debian's menu), and as far as I know, the static packages don't contain a menu entry that the .hjh packages do have.
Well, the rule of thumb is, try to improve the static rpms first. If you can add the Mandriva menu entry to static rpms in such a way that it does not break other distros, I think you should do that. Only if that is impossible, you can think about creating a distro-specific rpm.
Also, I did build a x86_64 versoin of inkscape, actually I began with that, as that didn't exist yet, and people were asking for it (especially at Mandriva sites and fora).
I think that a static rpm for x86_64 would certainly be good to have - and more useful than Mandriva-only x86_64 rpm. However I don't know much about rpms so I would welcome comments from someone more knowledgeable (Kees?).
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 02:57:59PM -0300, bulia byak wrote:
I think that a static rpm for x86_64 would certainly be good to have - and more useful than Mandriva-only x86_64 rpm. However I don't know much about rpms so I would welcome comments from someone more knowledgeable (Kees?).
I can try doing --target x86_64 and see what happens. :P
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 12:17:29PM +0200, Hendrik-Jan Heins wrote:
Yes,
I created these packages.
Hi Hendrik, thanks very much for creating these packages.
I think you do have a very good point about the naming convention. However, I am not sure whether I can just use "mdk" as Mandriva does on the packages, as that could create some confusion about where they came from. As fas as I could find out, Mandriva itself (and people who are in some ways affiliated) use this extension. I am open to suggestions, so if you have a suggestion for a naming extention that is clear and describes where the package is for, please tell me.
We've never been told by Mandrake that our naming convention was problematic, so I think including 'mdk' in it should not pose a problem. I've done this myself in the past without issue, so would suggest it here as well.
I suppose that the static builds could be used in any distro that can handle .rpm files. However Mandriva uses a menu (like Debian's menu), and as far as I know, the static packages don't contain a menu entry that the .hjh packages do have.
Yes, I also ran into this specific issue when creating mandrake RPMs of Inkscape.
Also, I did build a x86_64 versoin of inkscape, actually I began with that, as that didn't exist yet, and people were asking for it (especially at Mandriva sites and fora). I don't think that the static build can replace that, can it?
Thanks for putting in the effort for creating this. You're right, AFAIK, no one so far has explored x86_64 builds before you.
Bryce
Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 12:17:29PM +0200, Hendrik-Jan Heins wrote:
I think you do have a very good point about the naming convention. However, I am not sure whether I can just use "mdk" as Mandriva does on the packages, as that could create some confusion about where they came from. As fas as I could find out, Mandriva itself (and people who are in some ways affiliated) use this extension. I am open to suggestions, so if you have a suggestion for a naming extention that is clear and describes where the package is for, please tell me.
We've never been told by Mandrake that our naming convention was problematic, so I think including 'mdk' in it should not pose a problem. I've done this myself in the past without issue, so would suggest it here as well.
Right. I'll change that now. I just rebuilt the packages to be named .mdk I think I'll get them in place of the older ones today.
I suppose that the static builds could be used in any distro that can handle .rpm files. However Mandriva uses a menu (like Debian's menu), and as far as I know, the static packages don't contain a menu entry that the .hjh packages do have.
Yes, I also ran into this specific issue when creating mandrake RPMs of Inkscape.
And just as you already pointed out, dependencies on other packages can be a real problem. Part of the problem is in naming rpm packages in the package that are neded for it to run (different naming conventions in the different distros). But also the different versions of glibc, gcc etc.. that are used can pose a problem. However... it doesn't have to be. I read a post somewhere about NVu x86_64, for which I also made an RPM package. In that post there was someone using Debian and Alien to convert the package to a .deb package. According to that post, it did work for him. Of course, this is no more than anecdotical. If you really want to know if an RPM package can be used on all distros, you should test every new version, on every distro and version.
Hendrik-Jan Heins
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:32:18PM -0300, bulia byak wrote:
On 8/9/05, Daniel D?az <mrchapp@...400...> wrote:
Perhaps the packages bear the wrong name. It seems those are for Mandriva something LE.
OK, thanks, I missed that thread, but now that I read it, I don't see the reasons for why we need the RPM. Doesn't the static one work there? If so why? Can we fix it?
Note that as a project we have NEVER taken the position of suppressing production of packages based on need (or perceived lack there-of). If someone feels there is a need for a distro-specific package to a degree that they would spend the effort to produce one, then we try to support it.
The one thing to balance against this, is that it does not result in confusion for the user who is trying to install it to his system. Fortunately, in general the MORE choices we give him, the more chances for success he has. Thus, being "inclusive" of new packages tends to be a win-win, and something we should _encourage_.
Have anyone tested these RPMs, by the way?
Can you suggest a simple checklist for testing RPMs? If so, I think this would be valuable for us to insert into the process as a pre-requisite for posting new RPMs (and other packages, if it can be generalized).
Bryce
participants (5)
-
Bryce Harrington -
bulia byak -
Daniel Díaz -
Hendrik-Jan Heins -
Kees Cook