Bug#661341: ITP: anope -- a set of IRC Services designed for flexibility and ease of use
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 07:46:51PM +0200, 'Christoph Biedl' wrote:
> Dominic Hargreaves wrote...
>
> > I'm now looking at the packaging of Anope 1.8.8 so in the absence
> > of further responses from Christopher am taking ownership of this
> > bug. Of course, if Christopher would like to get involved again I'd
> > be very happy to collaborate.
>
> Ups. Seems I either oversaw your previous message or I forgot about
> it. Since, however, I did not continue my work on Anope anyway, that
> package is probably better in your hands.
>
> One request ... please do the ngircd users a favour and
> package 1.9.x since 1.8.x does not have support for ngircd yet.
Hmm, my understanding is that 1.9.x is exactly what upstream
weren't keen on us packaging. My personal interest is of ircd-hybrid,
which is supported in 1.8.x, so unless there are some really
compelling reasons to switch to 1.9 I'm likely to stick with it.
Maybe it's better to have a separate anope-1.9 for those who need it,
if upstream approve and there is someone to do the work?
> From my remembrance, Debianisation of Anope wasn't easy, mostly since
> it appearently wasn't written with Debian's requirements in mind (just
> saying, no one to blame here). I can provide you my incomplete
> Debianisation of 1.9.6, but with a no questions asked policy only :)
> It's just I forgot most of the gory details. The major things and as
> far as I can recall:
>
> * Anope's file system layout is not at all FHS-like, you have to patch
> that. Expect some surprises.
>
> * The module loader uses randomized file names. Completely
> unnecessary, drop that.
>
> * There is an openssl linkage without an according exception by
> upstream. Try to get one (I failed), or ship Anope without.
Oh, fun. I've already had that debate for ircd-hybrid...
If you could put your packages somewhere for reference, that'd be
great. Thanks for the tips.
Cheers,
Dominic.
Reply to: