Re: Ogon packaging for Debian (was: Re: Bug#906072: Ogon packages available (Linux RDP Server))
Hi Marcel,
thanks for following Bernhard's approach and I am sorry that things weren't as easy as expected.
More inline...
Am Samstag, 20. Juni 2020 schrieb marcel@linux-ng.de:
> June 2, 2020 9:43 AM, "Bernhard Miklautz" <bernhard.miklautz@shacknet.at> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 05:52:19AM +0000, Mike Gabriel wrote:
> >
> >> On Mo 01 Jun 2020 18:04:15 CEST, marcel wrote:
> >> On Mo 01 Jun 2020 10:41:45 CEST, Bernhard Miklautz wrote:
> > However updating to the latest FreeRDP is on my map for a while. I'll
> > try to move that up the list. Until then I'd cherry pick FreeRDP 2
> > support. If I didn't miss anything the following commit should be
> > sufficient:
> > https://github.com/ogon-project/ogon/commit/47ac3c794ca9842261fc7008baffd5a3d7ff2ce7
> >
> > So long,
> > Bernhard
>
> Hi Bernhard,
>
> I just tried to build version 1.0.0 with the above patch (need additional modifications to apply) but build still fails on stable and unstable.
Urgh, this is bad news.
> So just let me try to convince you, that creating a package based on the "stable"/"1.0.0" release is not the best way to go:
>
> From what I know (and I may be wrong, so feel free to correct me):
>
> a) The 1.0.0 release is 2 years old (and therefore based on a software stack at least that old)
Valid point.
> b) There's never been a packaged ogon version (designed for end users)
>
> c) There are quite some dependencies that duplicate system libraries/tools (x-backend, pulseaudio, xfont, ...) that (if I understood Mike correctly) will need a lot of cleanup work in order to make it into the debian repo at all
Yes, the code deduplications need to be cleaned up. This is surely one of the major show stoppers.
> d) By packaging ogon it will be much easier for people to install and use it
Yes!
> e) The package will start somewhere in the "unstable"/"experimental" repo (I guess?)
experimental, it will be until all pieces have been assembled and uploaded to Debian.
> So (based on c)+e) I expect it to be a long way to get a debian "stable" flag - enough time maybe to prepare/release an new "stable"/"1.1.0" release?
Considering the problems described by Marcel, I sense that his suggestion is the way to go. Either we take Git snapshots or you make releases. The consolidation test can happen once all components are packaged and uploaded.
> And we're trying to make ogon accessible to a new type of user:
> Not some company that get's this software installed and maintained, but a "normal" User, that wants this stuff up an running my doing some "apt update && apt install" magic.
Marcel, I guess Bernhard is fully with us on this new target group focus. No need to get him onboard, he already is.
> With the current "1.0.0" approach, I expect this things to happen:
>
> To get things even running we will have to apply (significant) modifications to the 1.0.0 code base, even to get it compiling. We'll also get dependencies to new libraries/a new environment, that surely differs from the current 1.0.0 installations.
Yep, this sounds awkward. If it had been just 1 or 2 patches... ok... but with more effort the 1.0.0 packaging approach becomes questionable.
> So there will be modifications (and maybe different behaviour != "stable") anyway.
>
> In short:
>
> I'd vote for a more progressive approach:
>
> Maybe the current git state could be tagged as "1.0.1-dev" (or whatever you like) and we could start working with that (and later on switch to the new "stable"/"1.1.0" release).
@Bernhard: Feedback (second iteration)?
> I'd make things much easier, and instead of "wasting time" with backporting patches, this time could be spent on making this software usable for "everyone".
hmmhmm....
> But that's just my point of view. I'd like to hear your opinion an that.
Thanks for providing your test results, Marcel. I am sorry for the frustration encountered.
Bernhard, this requires feedback from you / Thincast, I guess.
Thanks+Greets,
Mike
--
Gesendet von meinem Fairphone (powered by SailfishOS)
Reply to: