Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
big .debian.tar.xz - EG Wordpress
7 views
Skip to first unread message
Russell Coker
May 16, 2012, 5:50:01 AM5/16/12
to
I just downloaded the source to Wordpress from Squeeze, it's got a 14M
.debian.tar.xz which is mostly sources for things that are included in the
upstream tarball. The build process appears to only use the upstream tarball
code so the 13MB of data in the debian/missing-sources directory isn't used
for building.
It is a really good thing to have upstream sources available as dictated by
the GPL (well done to whoever did that). But that availability doesn't
require that they be in the source package.
Would it be possible to have somewhere on the Debian servers for storing such
files so that they can be referenced in a README file or something rather than
sent to everyone? I'm sure that most people who build a Wordpress package
won't use them.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dev...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201205161945....@coker.com.au
.debian.tar.xz which is mostly sources for things that are included in the
upstream tarball. The build process appears to only use the upstream tarball
code so the 13MB of data in the debian/missing-sources directory isn't used
for building.
It is a really good thing to have upstream sources available as dictated by
the GPL (well done to whoever did that). But that availability doesn't
require that they be in the source package.
Would it be possible to have somewhere on the Debian servers for storing such
files so that they can be referenced in a README file or something rather than
sent to everyone? I'm sure that most people who build a Wordpress package
won't use them.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dev...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201205161945....@coker.com.au
Paul Wise
May 16, 2012, 6:00:01 AM5/16/12
to
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
> I just downloaded the source to Wordpress from Squeeze, it's got a 14M
> .debian.tar.xz which is mostly sources for things that are included in the
> upstream tarball. The build process appears to only use the upstream tarball
> code so the 13MB of data in the debian/missing-sources directory isn't used
> for building.
Seems like a bug, the best way to determine that sources are still
> I just downloaded the source to Wordpress from Squeeze, it's got a 14M
> .debian.tar.xz which is mostly sources for things that are included in the
> upstream tarball. The build process appears to only use the upstream tarball
> code so the 13MB of data in the debian/missing-sources directory isn't used
> for building.
buildable is to always build them.
> It is a really good thing to have upstream sources available as dictated by
> the GPL (well done to whoever did that). But that availability doesn't
> require that they be in the source package.
>
> Would it be possible to have somewhere on the Debian servers for storing such
> files so that they can be referenced in a README file or something rather than
> sent to everyone? I'm sure that most people who build a Wordpress package
> won't use them.
unimpressed.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dev...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Jon Dowland
May 16, 2012, 8:50:02 AM5/16/12
to
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 05:53:11PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Seems like a bug, the best way to determine that sources are still
> buildable is to always build them.
The stuff is things such as "minified" js. The wordpress source contains the
> Seems like a bug, the best way to determine that sources are still
> buildable is to always build them.
minified copies, and you can get the originals in separate tarballs from the
wordpress site.
It strikes me that this is *exactly* what the multiple-source-tarballs feature
of 3.0. is for. Although, the fact these sources aren't used at all is
troubling. If Debian used them (implemented the minifying as part of the build
process) we might catch a problem upstream miss (not necessarily a bad thing).
Of course, many of these could be separate source/binary packages in their own
right[1], as they have value outside of wordpress, and be Build-Depends/Depends
of wordpress. In fact a few already are: jquery (already packaged); swfupload
(not yet); tinymce (already packaged)…
[1] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/wordpress.git;a=blob;f=debian/missing-sources/README;h=3c3b33eadc25e8c43ca6147a185e127a5cc8a856;hb=HEAD
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dev...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Peter Samuelson
May 16, 2012, 6:30:02 PM5/16/12
to
[Russell Coker]
> Would it be possible to have somewhere on the Debian servers for
> storing such files so that they can be referenced in a README file or
> something rather than sent to everyone? I'm sure that most people
> who build a Wordpress package won't use them.
As Paul Wise said, best if we _do_ build things from source rather than
> storing such files so that they can be referenced in a README file or
> something rather than sent to everyone? I'm sure that most people
> who build a Wordpress package won't use them.
relying on upstream binaries.
But beyond that, if there is to be a separate place to put "all the
WordPress source we want to provide but you probably don't really
need", for GPL reasons, it needs to be on all the mirrors alongside the
source package you _do_ install. Not on some other website.
So I guess that brings us to a .dsc that can reference multiple
upstream tarballs (already possible, of course) but mark them such that
by default you only download or unpack _some_ of the tarballs.
The other option of course is to split wordpress into two source
packages, and move all the "users probably don't ever need to rebuild
this" stuff into the second source package and its corresponding binary
package, which regular wordpress can depend on.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dev...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Thomas Goirand
May 17, 2012, 2:30:01 AM5/17/12
to
On 05/16/2012 08:45 PM, Jon Dowland wrote:
> Of course, many of these could be separate source/binary packages in their own
> right[1], as they have value outside of wordpress, and be Build-Depends/Depends
> of wordpress. In fact a few already are: jquery (already packaged); swfupload
> (not yet); tinymce (already packaged)
Unfortunately, swfupload *cannot* be packaged in Debian because we have
> Of course, many of these could be separate source/binary packages in their own
> right[1], as they have value outside of wordpress, and be Build-Depends/Depends
> of wordpress. In fact a few already are: jquery (already packaged); swfupload
> (not yet); tinymce (already packaged)
no ways
of building it (unless the situation changed with adobe tools... in
which case,
I would really like to hear about it!). The only thing you could package
would
be a very old version of it.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dev...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Paul Wise
May 17, 2012, 3:30:02 AM5/17/12
to
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Unfortunately, swfupload *cannot* be packaged in Debian because we have
> no ways of building it (unless the situation changed with adobe tools... in
> which case, I would really like to hear about it!). The only thing you could package
> would be a very old version of it.
Now that we have an AS3 compiler in Debian (as3compile in swftools)
> Unfortunately, swfupload *cannot* be packaged in Debian because we have
> no ways of building it (unless the situation changed with adobe tools... in
> which case, I would really like to hear about it!). The only thing you could package
> would be a very old version of it.
maybe that would work?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dev...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6HMUX3RsB9kUXt5m2uC7qQU_+W-=f7r+MgyJ...@mail.gmail.com
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dev...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Yves-Alexis Perez
May 17, 2012, 4:00:02 AM5/17/12
to
On mer., 2012-05-16 at 19:45 +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> I just downloaded the source to Wordpress from Squeeze, it's got a 14M
> .debian.tar.xz which is mostly sources for things that are included in the
> upstream tarball. The build process appears to only use the upstream tarball
> code so the 13MB of data in the debian/missing-sources directory isn't used
> for building.
>
> It is a really good thing to have upstream sources available as dictated by
> the GPL (well done to whoever did that). But that availability doesn't
> require that they be in the source package.
>
> Would it be possible to have somewhere on the Debian servers for storing such
> files so that they can be referenced in a README file or something rather than
> sent to everyone? I'm sure that most people who build a Wordpress package
> won't use them.
>
Any reason you didn't CC: wordpress maintainers? (I guess they are
> I just downloaded the source to Wordpress from Squeeze, it's got a 14M
> .debian.tar.xz which is mostly sources for things that are included in the
> upstream tarball. The build process appears to only use the upstream tarball
> code so the 13MB of data in the debian/missing-sources directory isn't used
> for building.
>
> It is a really good thing to have upstream sources available as dictated by
> the GPL (well done to whoever did that). But that availability doesn't
> require that they be in the source package.
>
> Would it be possible to have somewhere on the Debian servers for storing such
> files so that they can be referenced in a README file or something rather than
> sent to everyone? I'm sure that most people who build a Wordpress package
> won't use them.
>
subscribed to -devel but considering the current mail rate, I'm unsure
they'll read everything so it might make sense to CC: them at first…)
Regards,
--
Yves-Alexis
Jon Dowland
May 17, 2012, 4:40:01 AM5/17/12
to
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 02:20:48PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Unfortunately, swfupload *cannot* be packaged in Debian because we have no
> ways of building it (unless the situation changed with adobe tools... in
> which case, I would really like to hear about it!). The only thing you could
> package would be a very old version of it.
So if I understand the situation correctly; wordpress ships a pre-build binary
> Unfortunately, swfupload *cannot* be packaged in Debian because we have no
> ways of building it (unless the situation changed with adobe tools... in
> which case, I would really like to hear about it!). The only thing you could
> package would be a very old version of it.
which cannot be generated in Debian? Whether the source is in a separate
package or not, this does not feel right.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dev...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Toni Mueller
May 17, 2012, 6:20:01 AM5/17/12
to
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 05:53:11PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
> > Would it be possible to have somewhere on the Debian servers for storing such
> > files so that they can be referenced in a README file or something rather than
> > sent to everyone? I'm sure that most people who build a Wordpress package
> > won't use them.
>
> If I downloaded a source package and didn't get source I would be most
> unimpressed.
Seconded!
> > Would it be possible to have somewhere on the Debian servers for storing such
> > files so that they can be referenced in a README file or something rather than
> > sent to everyone? I'm sure that most people who build a Wordpress package
> > won't use them.
>
> If I downloaded a source package and didn't get source I would be most
> unimpressed.
If you say "download some, and ignore the others in most cases", please
consider that in the case you really find out that you need the source,
you'll most likely be offline, and cannot do much about it (Murphy's
laws apply generously).
So I'd say, better get the whole chunk in one go to be safe.
Imho, much of the value of being entitled to have source is in actually
having it, instantanously, as opposed to merely having a legal option to
get it somehow, sometime.
Of course, YMMV.
Kind regards,
--Toni++
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dev...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Jon Dowland
May 17, 2012, 11:00:03 AM5/17/12
to
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:10:55PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote:
> If you say "download some, and ignore the others in most cases", please
> consider that in the case you really find out that you need the source,
> you'll most likely be offline, and cannot do much about it (Murphy's
> laws apply generously).
Hopefully you've got the build-dependencies too. Which, if the source packages
> If you say "download some, and ignore the others in most cases", please
> consider that in the case you really find out that you need the source,
> you'll most likely be offline, and cannot do much about it (Murphy's
> laws apply generously).
were split off into other packages, you'd then pull in.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dev...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Toni Mueller
May 17, 2012, 12:20:02 PM5/17/12
to
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 03:56:25PM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> Hopefully you've got the build-dependencies too. Which, if the source packages
> were split off into other packages, you'd then pull in.
Being able to read the source code can often get you quite far already,
> Hopefully you've got the build-dependencies too. Which, if the source packages
> were split off into other packages, you'd then pull in.
but yes, usually, I want all the build dependencies and a locally
runnable copy, too.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dev...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Raphael Hertzog
May 19, 2012, 10:10:01 AM5/19/12
to
Hi,
(Corsac was right, you'd better CC the maintainers with whom you want to
discuss...)
On Wed, 16 May 2012, Russell Coker wrote:
> Would it be possible to have somewhere on the Debian servers for storing such
> files so that they can be referenced in a README file or something rather than
> sent to everyone? I'm sure that most people who build a Wordpress package
> won't use them.
I don't see the point of it. This is the simplest way to ensure that
anyone who distributes Debian complies with the GPL for what is shipped
in the wordpress source package. Wordpress themselves are not doing it
seriously enough. Their corresponding page is not up-to-date:
http://wordpress.org/download/source/
Packaging wordpress is enough of a pain already, if you want to change
something you should join us and help us.
On Wed, 16 May 2012, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
>
On Wed, 16 May 2012, Jon Dowland wrote:
> It strikes me that this is *exactly* what the multiple-source-tarballs feature
> of 3.0. is for. Although, the fact these sources aren't used at all is
> troubling. If Debian used them (implemented the minifying as part of the build
> process) we might catch a problem upstream miss (not necessarily a bad thing).
Ditto.
> Of course, many of these could be separate source/binary packages in their own
> right[1], as they have value outside of wordpress, and be Build-Depends/Depends
> of wordpress. In fact a few already are: jquery (already packaged); swfupload
> (not yet); tinymce (already packaged)…
Indeed, some of the sources provided are for minified files that we don't
even install in the binary package. But things change quickly and
depending on testing and bug reports, we switch between using the embedded
copy and the Debian packaged copy.
So I took the easy solution.
Note that I use Wordpress so I (help) maintain the Wordpress package but I
have better things to do than to invent a build system that upstream
wouldn't use just for the sake of it.
We definitely need more help to maintain wordpress and you're welcome to
join if you feel like doing it.
I have done my share of work to get upstream to comply:
http://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/19065
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer
Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook:
→ http://debian-handbook.info/get/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dev...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2012051914...@rivendell.home.ouaza.com
(Corsac was right, you'd better CC the maintainers with whom you want to
discuss...)
On Wed, 16 May 2012, Russell Coker wrote:
> Would it be possible to have somewhere on the Debian servers for storing such
> files so that they can be referenced in a README file or something rather than
> sent to everyone? I'm sure that most people who build a Wordpress package
> won't use them.
anyone who distributes Debian complies with the GPL for what is shipped
in the wordpress source package. Wordpress themselves are not doing it
seriously enough. Their corresponding page is not up-to-date:
http://wordpress.org/download/source/
Packaging wordpress is enough of a pain already, if you want to change
something you should join us and help us.
On Wed, 16 May 2012, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
>
> > I just downloaded the source to Wordpress from Squeeze, it's got a 14M
> > .debian.tar.xz which is mostly sources for things that are included in the
> > upstream tarball. The build process appears to only use the upstream tarball
> > code so the 13MB of data in the debian/missing-sources directory isn't used
> > for building.
>
> > .debian.tar.xz which is mostly sources for things that are included in the
> > upstream tarball. The build process appears to only use the upstream tarball
> > code so the 13MB of data in the debian/missing-sources directory isn't used
> > for building.
>
> Seems like a bug, the best way to determine that sources are still
> buildable is to always build them.
You're welcome to provide a patch.
> buildable is to always build them.
On Wed, 16 May 2012, Jon Dowland wrote:
> It strikes me that this is *exactly* what the multiple-source-tarballs feature
> of 3.0. is for. Although, the fact these sources aren't used at all is
> troubling. If Debian used them (implemented the minifying as part of the build
> process) we might catch a problem upstream miss (not necessarily a bad thing).
> Of course, many of these could be separate source/binary packages in their own
> right[1], as they have value outside of wordpress, and be Build-Depends/Depends
> of wordpress. In fact a few already are: jquery (already packaged); swfupload
> (not yet); tinymce (already packaged)…
even install in the binary package. But things change quickly and
depending on testing and bug reports, we switch between using the embedded
copy and the Debian packaged copy.
So I took the easy solution.
Note that I use Wordpress so I (help) maintain the Wordpress package but I
have better things to do than to invent a build system that upstream
wouldn't use just for the sake of it.
We definitely need more help to maintain wordpress and you're welcome to
join if you feel like doing it.
I have done my share of work to get upstream to comply:
http://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/19065
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer
Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook:
→ http://debian-handbook.info/get/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dev...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Florian Weimer
May 19, 2012, 5:50:03 PM5/19/12
to
* Jon Dowland:
> So if I understand the situation correctly; wordpress ships a pre-build binary
> which cannot be generated in Debian? Whether the source is in a separate
> package or not, this does not feel right.
It's not without precedent. Ocaml bootstraps off a binary blob to
avoid a cyclic build dependency, for instance.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dev...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87zk93e...@mid.deneb.enyo.de
> So if I understand the situation correctly; wordpress ships a pre-build binary
> which cannot be generated in Debian? Whether the source is in a separate
> package or not, this does not feel right.
avoid a cyclic build dependency, for instance.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dev...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Thorsten Glaser
May 22, 2012, 9:30:03 AM5/22/12
to
Jon Dowland dixit:
>The stuff is things such as "minified" js. The wordpress source contains the
>minified copies, and you can get the originals in separate tarballs from the
>wordpress site.
Eh, I’d call that RC. People have been told off for not including the
corresponding source in the .orig.tar.gz for ages. (Same for a LICENCE
file, which one is not allowed to add in the Debian patch, even if the
licence terms come from upstream.)
You’ll have to repack the orig.tar.xz(I guess) thus.
>It strikes me that this is *exactly* what the multiple-source-tarballs feature
>of 3.0. is for.
Actually, I believe not, since they may belong into the _same_ tarball
as their “binaries” (minified versions).
>Although, the fact these sources aren't used at all is troubling.
Oh, definitely, that too.
In fact, I’ve already filed such as RC bug against one of the
ECMAscript packages where I noticed it, and I think this happens
with many more.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it
when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy them.
If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny
existence. -- Coywolf Qi Hunt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dev...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/Pine.BSM.4.64L.12...@herc.mirbsd.org
>The stuff is things such as "minified" js. The wordpress source contains the
>minified copies, and you can get the originals in separate tarballs from the
>wordpress site.
corresponding source in the .orig.tar.gz for ages. (Same for a LICENCE
file, which one is not allowed to add in the Debian patch, even if the
licence terms come from upstream.)
You’ll have to repack the orig.tar.xz(I guess) thus.
>It strikes me that this is *exactly* what the multiple-source-tarballs feature
>of 3.0. is for.
as their “binaries” (minified versions).
>Although, the fact these sources aren't used at all is troubling.
In fact, I’ve already filed such as RC bug against one of the
ECMAscript packages where I noticed it, and I think this happens
with many more.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it
when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy them.
If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny
existence. -- Coywolf Qi Hunt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dev...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
0 new messages