gstep-make 2.0 Re: gstep-base Re: [OGo-Developer] OGo InvoiceApplication

[Sebastian Reitenbach]

developer@opengroupware.org wrote: 
> > > Well, that belongs into discuss. Adam already said that he would  
> > > prefer to keep packages. And it definitely is an issue for the  
> 
> I'd *prefer* to keep packages,  but I'm *for* dropping packages if we
> can't maintain packages that *work*.  *I* will continue to maintain
> packages, but only for distributions I support.  
This is exactly what my opinion is about ogo packages. All these 
broken/outdated packages for the various distris make more people angry than 
happy. I'd be happy to maintain ports for OpenBSD, but I cannot do that for 
systems what I do not run, and therefore not know much about.
As long as there is nobody applying to the job to provide a GOOD working 
package for a given distribution, there just should be no package for this 
distribution available.
Then I think a good documented installation routine from source will make 
more people happy than broken packages. A good example for a webinterface 
installation from source is Request Tracker: http://www.bestpractical.com/rt
Usually, I also prefer to install rpm packages, but there all the 
installation and configuration stuff came out of the makefile, very easy to 
use.

> 
> Just for clarification. :)
> 
> > > majority of the OGo users not to have packages.
> > ok, but for someone who maintains packages already for a distri, it 
might 
> > not be too hard to change/upgrade these. As said, i do not know much 
enough 
> > about all the different kinds of packages.
> > > IMHO its a bad idea to base work on 'official' packages. The problem  
> 
> Yep,  I'd prefer to maintain 'our own' snapshots so that in any given
> instance we are working with a known quantity.  All distributions are,
> IMHO, pretty fickle about when & what gets bumped up in a release cycle.
> Some times they even switch Kerberos packages (Heimdal to Kerberos) in a
> POINT release!  After that one - "Holy Crap! That breaks EVERYTHING!" -
> I don't want to get stuck depending on any distro making a sane decision
> about something most developers don't seem to know anything about (and
> GNUstep is certainly in that category).
> 
> > > is that GNUstep broke the ABI quite often in the past. This is quite  
> > > an issue because you get at least one, more likely 2 releases per  
> > > year. Now if you have 5 different distris, they are unlikely to always  
> > > have the same ABI.
> 
> Yep
Ok, understood, but I think when the gnusteppers release new versions, we at 
least should try to update too, and run ogo against these.
I just have the fear that when we maintain own stuff, I fear that we get 
stuck with one version, and then maybe later in the future, when we want to 
upgrade a whole bunch of versions, then facing same problems as right now.
Trying to keep up with the new versions when they are released, would make 
updates easier as the differences will not be that much, if at all.

> 
> > well, debian is known to be soooo slow in updating packages ;)
> 
> Among other things;  I don't, and won't, support Debian.  But the Novell
> build service supports Debian, so if someone wants to use my project on
> the Novell build service to create Debian packages I'm more than willing
> to assist them - I just don't know [or care] anything about creating
> Debian packages.
The Novell distris would be the only Linux distributions, where I am 
interested in having packages too. 

cheers
Sebastian