Re: ocaml 3.08.3 upload plan (we are going to sid for this).
Hello,
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 08:55:57AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 10:27:21PM +0100, Sylvain LE GALL wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > As promise, i can answer a little bit longer on the reason why mldonkey
> > is RC for now.
>
> Thanks.
>
> > Well, the first point is that mldonkey doesn't have made release for more
> > than 4 months now. A new release ( 2.5.28.1 or 2.5.30 ) is available
> > since one week. The former version doesn't work very well since many p2p
> > network has made incompatible release of their protocol in order to make non
> > commercial client unable to communicate ( as usual they don't want
> > people not install spyware/adware and use their network ).
>
> Ok. But what about the not edonkey protocols supported ?
>
People mainly use the edonkey protocol with mldonkey. But you are right,
protocol like bitorrent has no problem.
> > Due to this perpetual evolution of protocol, i am not sure mldonkey is
> > well suited for being in a stable release ( i think a mldonkey package
> > in sarge will be useless after 4 months of existence ). So i am not
> > sure, i want to spend my time answering mail concerning the fact that
> > mldonkey doesn't work anymore...
>
> Maybe this would be a good candidate for the volatile distribution thingy they
> have been speaking about. Can you investigate this ?
>
Well, i just finished to read the requirement of volatile.debian.net. It
looks OK to have a mldonkey package in there...
> > Last, but not least, mldonkey actual package layout "sucks" ( to quote
> > one user that just send me an email ). In fact, i agree on this point,
> > since 1 year i have try to conceil policy, usability and easy
> > configuration of the package.... The result is a pretty big mess. It is
> > not really a question about bad maintenance or bad sponsorship. I really
> > don't think so. It is mainly the result of too much layer of compromise
> > ( compromis en francais ).
>
> Let's solve this together, ok, i believe you simply lack the experience to
> know how to best deal with this. An install at high priority should just work
> and ask the less possible questions. You can do more advanced configurations
> at medium or low priority.
>
> > I have plan concerning the future upload, i need time to apply them :
> > - split mldonkey-server to extract the init script and configuration.
> > This will allow user to install mldonkey-server and not run it (
> > because half of the user use it only from time to time, not as a
> > daemon ). The name of the new package will be mldonkey-server-daemon. The
> > former debconf question concerning the fact that mldonkey should start at
> > boot, will not be asked anymore ( but a variable will stay in the
> > configuration file ).
>
> Mmm, ...
>
> I think it is best to ask as a high/medium debconf question if you want to run
> it automatically, or manually.
>
> > - reduce the number of question asked in debconf : i will reduce the set
> > of question to 3 or 4 and only for options concerning things that is
> > needed to create a base download.ini. It is mandatory, since without
> > initial download.ini the things is totally unsecure. I will integrate
> > a sane configuration for the file /etc/default/mldonkey.
>
> I think you should do that for high priority, but ask more stuff for lower
> priorities.
>
> > - ask for the create of a user mldonkey or p2p or debian-mldonkey.
>
> Just create a mldonkey user and be gone with that. Maybe make the user
> configurable in lower priority, and complain loudly if the user creation fails
> because the user created it previously or something.
>
> high priority installs should just work with the minimum of user intervention.
>
Well, this looks like the actual solution. But what i fear is the
complexity of the maintainer script. I don't feel very comfortable with
some parts of these scripts ( even though they have been tested on my own
computer ). I want to simplify those script to make the package more
easy to maintain...
If you want, i will propose you a new package ( to you and to other dom
), just to see what you think of it...
> > For now, i am finishing a library ( ocaml-gettext ). Since i have nearly
> > finish my work on this, i will end it before working again on mldonkey (
> > i think that it should be ok by the end of the WE ).
>
> Cool.
Kind regard
Sylvain Le Gall
Reply to: