Mailing List Archive: Cherokee: users

Update on the .deb packaging

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

gwolf at gwolf

Oct 2, 2009, 9:45 PM

Post #1 of 10 (585 views)
Permalink

Update on the .deb packaging

Hi,

Good news:

After several months redoing the packaging from scratch, Cherokee
0.99.24 has been uploaded to Debian!

http://packages.qa.debian.org/c/cherokee/news/20091003T011724Z.html

http://packages.qa.debian.org/c/cherokee.html

I have not yet uploaded to Debian Unstable, as I am still unsure on
whether the packaging is sound — I made this upload to Experimental,
which means you will only get the packages if you explicitly ask
apt-get to use Experimental - And it is usually not too wise to
abuse. The packaging is still not prime quality, and I still have some
critical and important bugs to squish before uploading to unstable -
But I am sure it will be worth the wait.

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?repeatmerged=no&src=cherokee

Still, as the developer community, and as the community driving the
usage of this webserver, I invite you to test the packaging and to
comment on any weirdness. FWIW, I have already found a
non-concurrently-installable bug in some of the packages (some of them
are providing the same files)... Will be fixed soon.

Leonel: For building and playing with Ubuntu, I am building in the
'dh7' branch of the git repository.

I want to make my low library-fu obvious again: Álvaro and friends,
why are some libraries/modules/plugins compiled only to .so, and some
also to .a and to .la? As an example, out of a usual build, I get:

If I understand this correctly, I should be able to provide only the
.so files and ignore the others? (Debian frowns on statically linked
libraries) Or am I getting it all wrong and the .so should be provided
in the library, while the .a and .la in the development package
(allowing others to link to said library)?

Anyway, I'll also ask around within Debian. But still, if you have
some insight to give, please do so.

Thanks!

--
Gunnar Wolf • gwolf [at] gwolf • (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee [at] lists
http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee

linportal at gmail

Oct 3, 2009, 5:47 AM

Post #2 of 10 (555 views)
Permalink

Re: Update on the .deb packaging [In reply to]

Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Good news:
>
> After several months redoing the packaging from scratch, Cherokee
> 0.99.24 has been uploaded to Debian!
>
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/c/cherokee/news/20091003T011724Z.html
>
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/c/cherokee.html
>
> I have not yet uploaded to Debian Unstable, as I am still unsure on
> whether the packaging is sound — I made this upload to Experimental,
> which means you will only get the packages if you explicitly ask
> apt-get to use Experimental - And it is usually not too wise to
> abuse. The packaging is still not prime quality, and I still have some
> critical and important bugs to squish before uploading to unstable -
> But I am sure it will be worth the wait.
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?repeatmerged=no&src=cherokee
>
> Still, as the developer community, and as the community driving the
> usage of this webserver, I invite you to test the packaging and to
> comment on any weirdness. FWIW, I have already found a
> non-concurrently-installable bug in some of the packages (some of them
> are providing the same files)... Will be fixed soon.

Hello Gunnar!

Your announcement made me very happy as I've been waiting for a newer
version of Cherokee in Debian. And you're right, there must be early
adopters to weed the most nasty bugs before the package hits the
official repositories.

So I went straight away to Debian FTP to download packages, but I
couldn't find the i386 architecture package of cherokee 0.99.24, only
amd64 is available for download, what happened?

Thanks for your work!
--
http://www.linuxinsight.com/
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee [at] lists
http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee

gwolf at gwolf

Oct 3, 2009, 12:43 PM

Post #3 of 10 (551 views)
Permalink

Re: Update on the .deb packaging [In reply to]

LinuxInsight dijo [Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 02:47:29PM +0200]:
> Your announcement made me very happy as I've been waiting for a newer
> version of Cherokee in Debian. And you're right, there must be early
> adopters to weed the most nasty bugs before the package hits the
> official repositories.
>
> So I went straight away to Debian FTP to download packages, but I
> couldn't find the i386 architecture package of cherokee 0.99.24, only
> amd64 is available for download, what happened?

Hi,

Give autobuilders a bit of time to sort things out ;-) Experimental is
not at the top of the priority list for autobuilding. You can either
download the source packages and build them locally as .debs (which
should be identical to the official ones), or wait a bit.

Check at the bottom of the package's page¹ for the available
architectures.

¹ http://packages.debian.org/experimental/cherokee

--
Gunnar Wolf • gwolf [at] gwolf • (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee [at] lists
http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee

linportal at gmail

Oct 3, 2009, 1:04 PM

Post #4 of 10 (549 views)
Permalink

Re: Update on the .deb packaging [In reply to]

gwolf at gwolf

Oct 3, 2009, 1:17 PM

Post #5 of 10 (552 views)
Permalink

Re: Update on the .deb packaging [In reply to]

LinuxInsight dijo [Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 10:04:57PM +0200]:
>> Give autobuilders a bit of time to sort things out ;-) Experimental is
>> not at the top of the priority list for autobuilding. You can either
>> download the source packages and build them locally as .debs (which
>> should be identical to the official ones), or wait a bit.
>
> Oh, I see... Somebody ought to buy some faster machines for those
> autobuilders, I mean it can't take THAT long to finish building a few
> small packages. Completely another thing is that I wouldn't even allow
> packages in archive if their dependencies are not ready too.
>
> OK, thanks Gunnar, I'll wait for autobuilders and install packages as
> soon as they're available. I'll then let you know how it works.

Well, autobuilders run 24x7 :)

http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd/
http://experimental.ftbfs.de/

I see that i386 has been built and is maybe-successful (that's a good
thing :) ), so ti will arrive shortly.

--
Gunnar Wolf • gwolf [at] gwolf • (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee [at] lists
http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee

taher at unixwars

Oct 3, 2009, 1:20 PM

Post #6 of 10 (548 views)
Permalink

Re: Update on the .deb packaging [In reply to]

Hello :)

LinuxInsight wrote:
> Oh, I see... Somebody ought to buy some faster machines for those
> autobuilders, I mean it can't take THAT long to finish building a few
> small packages.
I wouldn't use the word 'few' here. Las time I checked, Debian unstable
had 30500 or so packages. Multiply that by the number of supported
architectures, and even autobuilding a small subset seems like an
impressive task to me ;-)

--
taher [at] unixwars
http://unixwars.com/

_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee [at] lists
http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee

linportal at gmail

Oct 3, 2009, 1:43 PM

Post #7 of 10 (550 views)
Permalink

Re: Update on the .deb packaging [In reply to]

Taher Shihadeh wrote:
> Hello :)
>
> LinuxInsight wrote:
>> Oh, I see... Somebody ought to buy some faster machines for those
>> autobuilders, I mean it can't take THAT long to finish building a few
>> small packages.
> I wouldn't use the word 'few' here. Las time I checked, Debian unstable
> had 30500 or so packages. Multiply that by the number of supported
> architectures, and even autobuilding a small subset seems like an
> impressive task to me ;-)
>

Hey, computers are really fast nowadays. I update my unstable quite
often and you know what, in last 24 hours there really wasn't that many
new packages. And stable is slowly moving target anyway. So I'd guess
there's ample CPU available to build cute new cherokee_i386.deb.

I didn't even know autobuilders are doin' the work before Gunnar
explained. I thought packages are still packed by a maintainer and
uploaded. But, I'm sure that the autobuilder system has some shortfalls
that could have been solved better.

For example each and every time some of the package sets arrive in
unstable, some of the packages are updated, but I have to wait day or
two for the rest, sometimes even more. And it always looks the same,
they always come broken in a predictable way. In many cases those are
quite small packages. For example whenever I see new version of git has
been prepared, EACH and EVERY time the proper thing to do is to
immediately put all those new git packages on hold, one by one. Because
the git-core package NEVER comes with them, and they ALL depend on it. 2
days later git-core comes, also quite predictable. ;)

Now tell me that autobuilder always comes short just of git-core and
manages to perfectly build everything else? Sorry if I'm not convinced...

And apologies to the list for the off-topic rant.
--
http://www.linuxinsight.com/
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee [at] lists
http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee

linportal at gmail

Oct 5, 2009, 1:21 PM

Post #8 of 10 (541 views)
Permalink

Re: Update on the .deb packaging [In reply to]

Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> LinuxInsight dijo [Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 02:47:29PM +0200]:
>> Your announcement made me very happy as I've been waiting for a newer
>> version of Cherokee in Debian. And you're right, there must be early
>> adopters to weed the most nasty bugs before the package hits the
>> official repositories.
>>
>> So I went straight away to Debian FTP to download packages, but I
>> couldn't find the i386 architecture package of cherokee 0.99.24, only
>> amd64 is available for download, what happened?
>
> Hi,
>
> Give autobuilders a bit of time to sort things out ;-) Experimental is
> not at the top of the priority list for autobuilding. You can either
> download the source packages and build them locally as .debs (which
> should be identical to the official ones), or wait a bit.
>
> Check at the bottom of the package's page¹ for the available
> architectures.
>
> ¹ http://packages.debian.org/experimental/cherokee
>

Ok, two days later (predictably) building is finished. Unfortunately,
I'll have to skip this batch. :(

1) there's no cherokee-doc package? (not important to me, but...)

2) libcherokee-server0 now depends on all packages listed below, I think
this is an error. I don't have use for any of those, and certainly don't
want them installed on my server:

_* Opt libs libavcodec52 ffmpeg codec library
_* Opt libs libavformat5 ffmpeg file format library
_* Opt libs libavutil49 ffmpeg utility library
_* Opt libs libdirac-enc open and royalty free high quality codec
- encoder library
_* Opt libs libfaad2 freeware Advanced Audio Decoder -
runtime files
_* Opt libs libgeoip1 A non-DNS IP-to-country resolver library
_* Opt libs libgsm1 Shared libraries for GSM speech compressor
_* Opt libs libogg0 Ogg bitstream library
_* Opt libs liboil0.3 Library of Optimized Inner Loops
_* Opt libs libopenjpeg2 JPEG 2000 image
compression/decompression library
_* Opt libs libschroedin library for encoding/decoding of Dirac
video streams
_* Opt libs libspeex1 The Speex codec runtime library
_* Opt libs libtheora0 The Theora Video Compression Codec
_* Opt libs libvorbis0a The Vorbis General Audio Compression
Codec (Decoder library)
_* Opt libs libvorbisenc The Vorbis General Audio Compression
Codec (Encoder library)

Regards,
--
http://www.linuxinsight.com/
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee [at] lists
http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee

gwolf at gwolf

Oct 5, 2009, 3:13 PM

Post #9 of 10 (542 views)
Permalink

Re: Update on the .deb packaging [In reply to]

Hi,

I am in a low-bandwiodth connection, in Colombia (came for a
conference for this week) - so if my connectivity is usually bad due
to human reasons (i.e. me being sucky at time management), this week
you can expect me to be even less responsive.

LinuxInsight dijo [Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 10:21:36PM +0200]:
> Ok, two days later (predictably) building is finished. Unfortunately,
> I'll have to skip this batch. :(
>
> 1) there's no cherokee-doc package? (not important to me, but...)

There is!

http://packages.debian.org/experimental/cherokee
http://packages.debian.org/experimental/cherokee-doc

> 2) libcherokee-server0 now depends on all packages listed below, I think
> this is an error. I don't have use for any of those, and certainly don't
> want them installed on my server:
> (...)

Umh, you are right, I have to properly wiggle many of those libraries
out, so that the packages really depending on them are each of the
individual plugins. Thanks!

--
Gunnar Wolf • gwolf [at] gwolf • (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee [at] lists
http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee

linportal at gmail

Oct 5, 2009, 3:25 PM

Post #10 of 10 (545 views)
Permalink

Re: Update on the .deb packaging [In reply to]

Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am in a low-bandwiodth connection, in Colombia (came for a
> conference for this week) - so if my connectivity is usually bad due
> to human reasons (i.e. me being sucky at time management), this week
> you can expect me to be even less responsive.
>
> LinuxInsight dijo [Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 10:21:36PM +0200]:
>> Ok, two days later (predictably) building is finished. Unfortunately,
>> I'll have to skip this batch. :(
>>
>> 1) there's no cherokee-doc package? (not important to me, but...)
>
> There is!
>
> http://packages.debian.org/experimental/cherokee
> http://packages.debian.org/experimental/cherokee-doc
>

Ugh, I see where it went wrong, i pulled all *0.99.24*i386* packages,
which is obviously wrong, cherokee-doc is probably _all.deb, which it
should be. Sorry about that, my mistake.

>> 2) libcherokee-server0 now depends on all packages listed below, I think
>> this is an error. I don't have use for any of those, and certainly don't
>> want them installed on my server:
>> (...)
>
> Umh, you are right, I have to properly wiggle many of those libraries
> out, so that the packages really depending on them are each of the
> individual plugins. Thanks!
>

You're welcome. Whenever you find time to fix that, I'll be waiting and
ready to install and test the packages live.

Have fun at conference!
--
http://www.linuxinsight.com/
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee [at] lists
http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads