[GRASS5] Re: [GRASSLIST:2996] Re: Debian Grass packages

Summary for the Micro-executives:

I'd suggest (speaking as a long time Debian user):

* 5.0.3 offical package; a 5.3-cvs-"$date" one would be nice for Sarge.
* weekly 5.3 and 5.7-snapshot unoffical .debs hosted by the GRASS website.

-=--=--=-

Debian archives explained:

Stable "Woody" version 3.0. Only security & severe data-loss fixes.
                 GRASS is not and will not be in this release.

Testing "Sarge" will become the next Stable upon release (2-3 months?).
                 Pacakges enter testing after all dependancies are met
                 and they've been in Unstable for ~2 weeks without bugs.

Unstable "Sid" the latest uploads, never released, always changing.

-=--=--=-

now back to the show:

> Today I indeed looked at
> http://mpa.itc.it/markus/grass57/debian/grass57deb/
> But instead of finding a *_i386.deb link which is about all my
> Limited Edition Brain can handle, all I found was a mass of
> instructions that scared me away, only proving my point that the
> idea of a fresh Grass .deb is frayed and in tatters.
>
> "apt-get install grass" always get something years behind, and some
> dead-end branch or something due to lack of communication.

I'm not sure I agree with that, currently it is at 5.0.3-2.
That is currently the official stable version of GRASS, according to us.
see http://packages.debian.org/grass

NVIZ is broken in that package (it's built against debian's TclTk 8.4),
but otherwise it is just fine. [I've tried this on a number of PCs, but
it would sure be nice if someone else could confirm this bug.] This is
something I'd like to fix before 5.3 is released but haven't had the
time to work on yet.

> "dpkg -i grass" of some non-official package must be used, and low
> and behold, there is some long instructions... not all .deb users
> have compile skills, that is one of the reasons there are .debs and
> not just .tar.gz's.
>
> Solution: make a grass_5.7.0_i386.deb etc. as the official debian
> version.

Agreed.

I don't agree with that. It misses out on what what Debian/stable is
for, i.e. Rock Solid and well tested Free software. 5.7 is a moving
target -- the debian package would be frozen in time for maybe two years
in whatever state 5.7 was at when the package was made, leading to
possible and probable incompatibilities with other GRASS installations.
I'll use last week's 5.7 topology upgrade as an example to support this.

My suggestion would be to first get a fully working grass-5.0.3 package
into Debian/testing [*]. (which is really up to the official Debian
developers, Federico Di Gregorio & Francesco Paolo Lovergine, to do [**])

[*] I think all that needs to be done is to change the build-depends to
tcl8.3-dev and tk8.3-dev & re-upload?

[**] becoming a Debian developer isn't as simple as just us nominating
someone and providing a package. The best way for non-developers to help
is to file a patch in the debian bug tracking system against whatever
the problem is.

Having said that...

When we have that in "testing" (i.e. two weeks in "unstable" without any
major bugs) assuring a solid package for the next Debian release, we
should look at putting up something like "grass-5.3-cvs-20040321" as the
official Debian package. I think at this point, 5.3 is stable enough, we
are mostly looking at minor bug fixes for a release; and no new gross
incompatibilities will be introduced before said release. I'm sure the
Debian binary mirrors/ISO makers's would appreciate the disk space savings
5.3's shared libraries provide too. GRASS is too big/specialist to ask
that all the mirrors & ISO makers host both stable and -cvs versions.
The archive is already up to 13 CD's (13,000+ packages!)....

The freeze for the next Debian release will be in the next few months,
so I suggest we get on with it.. It would sure be nice to not have 5.0.3
locked in as the 'apt-get'able version of GRASS for the next one/two
years. Also note this package is likely to be the version which will be
used for most of the Knoppix based demo CDs.

But in the first place we need a debian developer to support it.
The maximum I can do as a non-debian developer is to provide
instructions how to compile it on Debian :slight_smile:

Ok, I will look into finding/putting together a clean debian/stable
computer and following Markus's instructions on how to build unoffical
packages for 5.3-cvs and 5.7-cvs, & partly based on the existing Debian
package.

I would not intend to rebuild the packages on a regular basis (yes, a
problem...) as I'm already over committed .. I could not host these
packages either - they would have to be sent to someone else. Also, I do
not intend to split out the help pages as the real debian package does -
too much work. Also note that I don't currently know how to do any of
this, and maybe it wouldn't happen until mid-June.

It is hard to pick what to build for/against. Debian/testing, /unstable,
5.3, and 5.7 are all moving targets and a package would soon be out of
date; rebuilding requires updating *everything*. I'd build "today"s
snapshots against debian/stable, but libgdal1 is only in Debian/testing..?
Have to auto-build & incorporate that too. argh.. (a package built for
stable would install on testing or unstable without a problem, right??)

My time is short, so no promises; if someone else was thinking about
doing it, by all means go ahead - don't wait for me.. what is really
needed is someone who runs a debian server which could run a script to
download the weekly snapshots, auto-build the binaries, and then
either host them locally or upload them to Italy (, .it->mirrors).

Hamish

Scavenging the mail folder uncovered Hamish's letter:

* 5.0.3 offical package; a 5.3-cvs-"$date" one would be nice for Sarge.
* weekly 5.3 and 5.7-snapshot unoffical .debs hosted by the GRASS website.

I don't know very well the state of grass but Markus mail lead me to think
5.0.3 was old and 5.3/5.7 are the way to go. now hamish says the opposite.
IMHO the *best* thing we can do now is to have a _stable_ and _working_
grass in debian. The version production systems out there are using should
go in; please tell me which one.

After that I pretty much agree with hamish, we make a grass-snapshot package
and distribute it in debian unstable or even from an apt-gettable repo on
grass mirrors.

Markus, it would very nice if you could fix packaging bugs by starting from
debian packages and then sending diffs to the debian BTS, not by repackaging
everything. Unfortunately Debian packages have some requirements like
automated build from sources+diff and we can't just take your hand crafted
debs and drop them in the archive. Sorry.

federico

--
Federico Di Gregorio
Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact fog@debian.org
  Those who do not study Lisp are doomed to reimplement it. Poorly.
                                     -- from Karl M. Hegbloom .signature

On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 10:33:06AM +0100, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:

Scavenging the mail folder uncovered Hamish's letter:
> * 5.0.3 offical package; a 5.3-cvs-"$date" one would be nice for Sarge.
> * weekly 5.3 and 5.7-snapshot unoffical .debs hosted by the GRASS website.

I don't know very well the state of grass but Markus mail lead me to think
5.0.3 was old and 5.3/5.7 are the way to go. now hamish says the opposite.

5.0.3 *is* oldish and 5.3/5.7 are the way to go.
But for me it's not too important. I contribute to new versions and
packaged an ARM .deb of 5.7 (which I heared was successfully repeated
on x86). If Debian packagers prefer to stick with 5.0.3, that's fine
for me (maybe not for the Debian users, though).

IMHO the *best* thing we can do now is to have a _stable_ and _working_
grass in debian. The version production systems out there are using should
go in; please tell me which one.

GRASS 4.1 :slight_smile:

After that I pretty much agree with hamish, we make a grass-snapshot package
and distribute it in debian unstable or even from an apt-gettable repo on
grass mirrors.

Markus, it would very nice if you could fix packaging bugs by starting from
debian packages and then sending diffs to the debian BTS, not by repackaging
everything.

Seems that I am the wrong person because I don't understand above sentence
about packaging.

Unfortunately Debian packages have some requirements like
automated build from sources+diff and we can't just take your hand crafted
debs and drop them in the archive. Sorry.

OK, no problem for me (I'm no Debian user).

Markus

Hi,

5.0.3 *is* oldish and 5.3/5.7 are the way to go.
But for me it's not too important. I contribute to new versions and
packaged an ARM .deb of 5.7 (which I heared was successfully repeated
on x86). If Debian packagers prefer to stick with 5.0.3, that's fine
for me (maybe not for the Debian users, though).

it will be nice to get debian packages of uptodate 5.7 either
from debian apt repositery, or atleast from grass web site.

Thanks and regards,
--
"Freedom Matters"
Sajith VK

On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 10:54:00AM +0100, Markus Neteler wrote:

On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 10:33:06AM +0100, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> Scavenging the mail folder uncovered Hamish's letter:
> > * 5.0.3 offical package; a 5.3-cvs-"$date" one would be nice for Sarge.
> > * weekly 5.3 and 5.7-snapshot unoffical .debs hosted by the GRASS website.
>
> I don't know very well the state of grass but Markus mail lead me to think
> 5.0.3 was old and 5.3/5.7 are the way to go. now hamish says the opposite.

5.0.3 *is* oldish and 5.3/5.7 are the way to go.
But for me it's not too important. I contribute to new versions and
packaged an ARM .deb of 5.7 (which I heared was successfully repeated
on x86). If Debian packagers prefer to stick with 5.0.3, that's fine
for me (maybe not for the Debian users, though).

> IMHO the *best* thing we can do now is to have a _stable_ and _working_
> grass in debian. The version production systems out there are using should
> go in; please tell me which one.

We already have some development/snapshot packages around in the archive.
I can think to gimp as one of them. There's nothing wrong in having multiple
versions available, but surely a snapshot version is not typically useful
in a stable release, due to its always-in-progress nature, which is
quite far from the 'stability' concept in debian and off.

--
Francesco P. Lovergine

Scavenging the mail folder uncovered Hamish's letter:
> * 5.0.3 offical package; a 5.3-cvs-"$date" one would be nice for
> Sarge.* weekly 5.3 and 5.7-snapshot unoffical .debs hosted by the
> GRASS website.

I don't know very well the state of grass but [...]

It doesn't give you a time scale, or a "you are here", but see:
http://grass.ibiblio.org/roadmap.html

I guess we are somewhere 80% through the "5.3.x" stage, readying for a
5.4 release.

[...] Markus mail lead me to think 5.0.3 was old and 5.3/5.7 are the
way to go. now hamish says the opposite.

Well not quite -- I do hope that Sarge is released with a 5.3 snapshot
(hey, why not 5.4.0). Just that this might not happen this week. All the
existing 5.0.3 package needs to be great is the small diff which is
attached [*]. That could be done in a few hours.

Yes, 5.0.3 is getting old now..

[*] untested of course, I'd be happy to test before a package is
uploaded to unstable, or otherwise.

This will get a known good package into Sarge in ~10 days time,
guaranteeing the next Debian release will have a working NVIZ.
That's my immediate concern. As soon as that's in place, by all means
lets get 5.3-cvs into unstable. I'm just worried that this is a quite a
lot of work to do & might take some time to perfect + the debian
freeze starts reasonably soon. It would be nice to have a good 5.0.3
package in place as a backup, and we are so close to having that now.

I don't think 5.7 should be included in Debian stable as it is still
fluid and lightly tested, which isn't really what Debian stable is meant
to be about. I think 5.3 is close enough to what "5.4" will become that
the changes won't be too noticeable to someone 12 months from now who
wants to install GRASS from Debian/Stable yet still be able to go back
and forth with other GRASS 5.4 installations.

IMHO the *best* thing we can do now is to have a _stable_
and _working_ grass in debian. The version production systems out
there are using should go in; please tell me which one.

I'd say that right now this is 5.3-cvs, but I'll go along with whatever
you and Markus decide is best.

I can put together an unofficial 5.7 grass .deb for the grass website
for those folks who want to try out the latest and greatest (I've just
purloined an old machine with a blank hard drive that I can use for a
clean build) You guys have already done almost all of the hard work for
that already... [5.7 with shared libs, gdal & proj, docs included;
built against debian/testing or Sarge (whenever Sarge is born)]

After that I pretty much agree with hamish, we make a grass-snapshot
package and distribute it in debian unstable or even from an
apt-gettable repo on grass mirrors.

If 5.3-cvs is released with Sarge, I think putting a 5.7 package into
unstable after that day is a great idea. It occurs to me the GRASS and
Debian release cycles are somewhat in sync, and the next Debian release
after this one will probably be about the same time as 5.8/6.0 is common.

Markus, it would very nice if you could fix packaging bugs by starting
from debian packages and then sending diffs to the debian BTS, not by
repackaging everything.

> Seems that I am the wrong person because I don't understand above
> sentence about packaging.

Just for translation, the BTS just means http://bugs.debian.org/grass

Hopefully one day 5.7's debian/ directory in CVS can be sync'd with the
Debian package's one on a regular basis. Less work for everyone..

best,
Hamish

(attachments)

nviz_patch.diff (1.34 KB)